The House met at 1333.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RETAIL SALES TAX REBATES

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon on a matter of significant importance to the hard-hit retail sector in Ontario's tourism areas, especially those within close proximity to the US border. It is a fact that many retail operations do not have retail sales tax rebate forms readily available for their customers at the checkout counter, an incentive to purchase which is used in many European countries to great advantage.

Ontario has 28 million travellers per year, 24 million of whom are from out of the country. Of this number, the Ministry of Revenue only processes 180,000 retail sales tax rebate request forms. This is only 0.6%, less than 1% -- opportunities lost, rights hidden.

I understand that the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation has the responsibility to promote this tax benefit for visitors. I ask, is there an initiative or an incentive to encourage Ontario retailers to participate? I urge this government to promote this program to help retailers, especially in border communities, to inform their customers to take advantage of Ontario's sales tax and accommodation tax rebate programs, which are now one of the province's best-kept secrets. Tax benefits for tourists are gold indeed.

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES POLICIES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources and it concerns the budget cuts he has imposed on Ontario's conservation officers.

A May 29th memo from the Owen Sound district fish and wildlife office indicates that, retroactive to April 1, the annual allotment per officer will be cut to $5,000. That's supposed to cover mileage, travel expenses, equipment, uniform and cellular phones. Also, vehicle travel will be cut back to 20,000 kilometres per year. Your budget cuts will result in a 50% reduction in charges, contacts, convictions and warnings.

Minister, I really don't think you can justify putting your ministry's conservation officers' objectives at risk by imposing budget cuts that reduce conservation officers from being field specialists and front-line troops to the role of penny-pinched pencil pushers. Because of your massive cutbacks, especially in the field, highly dedicated field staff will be managing our national resources from an office. That means there will be no site visits for the forest health program, no dollars allocated for fencing and little or no management work in agreement forests. It also means there will be no maintenance of roads that service MNR facilities.

Minister, the people of Ontario are wondering what you are doing with the $38 million in hunting and fishing licence revenue. You have an obligation to explain why you are unwilling, unable or uncaring about the stewardship of our natural resources.

MARY FRANCES RICHARDSON

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I rise today to pay tribute to Professor Mary Frances Richardson, a chemistry professor at Brock University in St Catharines who has been named Canadian Professor of the Year. Professor Richardson was honoured with the award mainly for her commitment to getting students, especially female students, interested in chemistry.

The award, from the Washington-based Council for Advancement and Support of Education, is a fitting tribute to this outstanding educator, who has personally experienced much of the sexism she now fights to eliminate. Ironically, Professor Richardson was told early in her career that although she was a good student, she would never get hired because she was a woman. She was even refused a job at an American university because she was told it already had its token woman and didn't need another.

Now, years later, Professor Richardson is working to break down the barriers that have turned many young women away from careers in science. At Brock, she has been involved in establishing a women's studies program, revising the chemistry curriculum and has been actively recruiting at local high schools to get female students interested in science.

I hope all members of this House will join with me in congratulating Professor Mary Frances Richardson for this major achievement not only in her career but in the careers of many young women she has undoubtedly inspired and will hopefully inspire in the future.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Recently I had the opportunity to meet with business people from my riding of Oriole to discuss the NDP government's proposals regarding the Ontario Labour Relations Act. These individuals in my community have worked hard to create and support companies in this province which provide employment for many Ontarians.

Having contributed so much to the province, they now feel betrayed and under siege from this NDP government. One businessman, Mr Elie Benatar, shared his thoughts with me on the government's proposals.

He stated: "I am a member of the Vaughan Manufacturers Association. They bitterly oppose this scummy piece of legislation as the most anti-worker legislation ever devised because it will create widespread unemployment."

1340

Mr Benatar continues: "Manufacturing is the employment engine of Ontario and a lot of firms will move to the United States or Mexico. Since over 80% of Ontarians oppose this legislation, why don't the Liberals take action? Ask for the resignation of the present NDP government. Elections should take place before the legislation is approved, as the NDP does not have a mandate to make Ontario a desert."

My colleagues and I in the Liberal caucus urge the government to listen to the appeals of business people like Mr Benatar. The government's priority should be to work with business to lift Ontario out of the present recession, not expending its energies on arbitrary rule changes designed to silence the opposition in this Legislature.

DURHAM FURNITURE COMPANY

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): On February 10 of this year Kroehler Furniture, which owned plants in Toronto, Stratford, Edmonton, Wingham and Durham, went into receivership. Before this date, the plant in Durham was a viable, successful operation which employed close to 200 people, had a national sales force and a network of retailers.

When the company went under, three of the managers at the Durham operation, Orville Mead, Lloyd Love and Jack Lawrence, vowed to take action. Since the plant had been manufacturing case goods, or household furniture, and since Canadians had spent $600 million on these items last year, they reasoned the market was still there.

The next step was to approach the community. As members may know, Durham is part of what was once known as the furniture capital of the province. Now, however, the market has fallen off and manufacturers are going out of business. The area could ill afford another bankruptcy. Losing Kroehler, Durham's largest employer, would have a major impact on the town. The community banded together to help, and with its moral and financial support, the officers were able to find an investment partner.

Yesterday, the new Durham Furniture company proudly and officially opened its doors. Credit for this must go to the Ontario Development Corp, which guaranteed a loan, the town of Durham, which made it happen, and Orville Mead, Lloyd Love and Jack Lawrence, who refused to let their dream die. I wish them all every success.

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): This week, June 22 to 27, is Deaf-Blind Awareness Week in Canada. I had the pleasure of making this same announcement in the House last year and I would like to share with you some of the achievements that have been accomplished since that time.

Yesterday was the grand opening of an apartment complex with units for 16 independent deaf-blind adults, the first of its kind in North America. The Rotary Cheshire Homes and the Toronto-Don Valley Rotary Club worked for seven years to bring this project to its completion. Although this is a great achievement for the deaf-blind community, with 600 deaf-blind people living in Ontario we still have a long way to go.

Joyce Thompson, the executive director of the Rotary Cheshire apartments, is with us in the east gallery today. I congratulate you and all those involved on your efforts and dedication to make this much-needed facility a reality.

Another milestone for deaf-blind people has been the establishment of a diploma course on intervening offered through George Brown College. Intervenors are people who are specially trained to work with persons who are deaf-blind. Enough cannot be said to stress the importance of intervention for deaf-blind persons as a means to self-empowerment.

Deaf Blind Services of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind are hosting a number of activities and events this week to celebrate and promote public awareness and education of deaf-blindness.

Kerry Wadman, associate coordinator of Deaf Blind Services, along with other members of the deaf-blind community, are also in the gallery today. I wish you all the best of luck this week and throughout the year on your promotion of deaf-blind issues.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): My statement today is directed towards the Minister of Transportation. It concerns the long waiting time that drivers must wait to obtain a driver's examination. Let me give you some examples: In Belleville, an appointment for a driver's test cannot be obtained until October; in Trenton, October, in Picton, October, in Kingston, September. These are periods of over three months.

I understand that nearly all members of this Legislature are experiencing these same problems in their own ridings. As an example, the member for Pembroke tells me his people are also waiting for over three months.

Minister, the situation is now at a crisis stage. People needing licences for jobs -- many of these students -- are being turned away. I understand that Young Drivers of Canada has also brought this matter to your attention.

Minister, offices are being closed; in others no staff are available to give the tests. Lineups are stretching for miles. Minister, something has to be done within your ministry to correct this problem. There is disarray and confusion. Would you let the members of this Legislature and the people of the province know how you intend to remedy this situation?

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): In response to a question I asked on June 17 regarding the use of secret ballot votes for certification of unions, strikes and collective agreement ratification, the Minister of Labour responded by saying that he has not been approached by anyone requesting the use of the secret ballot.

I would like to point out to the minister that throughout his public consultation process he received many submissions from groups and individuals calling for a secret ballot vote. In fact, as a result of his answer last week I received a letter from the president of the Rubber Association of Canada indicating his surprise that the minister would imply no one had asked him to include a provision for a secret ballot.

In his letter he states that: "I was painfully amused to see that the comment from Bob Mackenzie is quoted as 'I haven't been asked' in regard to the suggestion that secret ballots should be a matter of law. I met with Bob Mackenzie as part of an all-business coalition team to discuss the new labour legislation on January 22. At that time I made exactly the same points to the minister about secret ballot and got exactly the same reply: 'I haven't been asked before.' My colleagues found his reply astonishing back in January since this has been a constant request...."

If the minister believes that no one in this province is calling for the use of a secret ballot vote, then clearly the minister was not listening during his so-called consultation process.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): On June 17 the member for York Centre raised a lengthy point of privilege. He complained the government party "alleges that members of the Liberal caucus and members of the Progressive Conservative caucus are involved in what amounts to criminal activity."

The member complained about the following phrase used in a bulletin by the Ontario New Democratic Party: "The old élites, those big business leaders, who keep the Liberals and the Tories in their back pocket." He argued that the phrase "to keep someone in your back pocket" means to bribe them. He argued this suggests the Liberals and Tories were committing a criminal offence by receiving money to perform their public responsibilities. He said these allegations prohibit him from carrying on his responsibility as an elected member of this Legislature.

Let me quote from the May 27 Hansard, where the member for St Catharines, in response to the Minister of Energy, said, "why don't you get out of the back pocket of the oil companies in this province -- a place where the NDP never thought it'd be, but it is."

I won't indulge myself and raise a point of privilege on the so-called allegation of criminal activity. My point is, the only criminal activity going on here is the mean-spirited, self-serving way the opposition and the third party are wasting taxpayers' money and the time and money in this House to score cheap points on the public record.

What's stopping the member for York Centre from performing his responsibilities is that he'd rather have the taxpayers fund his amateur theatrical performances. If the member and his caucus had any respect for the public interest they'd come down from their soapboxes, do an honest day's work as an opposition and let the government do its job.

ANNUAL REPORT, COMMISSION ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the annual report of the Commission on Conflict of Interest for the period April 1, 1991, to March 31, 1992.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND / BOULOT ONTARIO FORMATION

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): It gives me great pleasure to announce today the creation of 271 new jobs as a direct result of the Jobs Ontario Training fund program announced by the Treasurer seven weeks ago.

This morning, on behalf of the Ontario government I signed an agreement between the Jobs Ontario Training fund and our private sector partner, Linamar Machine Ltd of Guelph, Ontario.

Selon l'accord, Linamar, un manufacturier ontarien de pièces de haute précision pour les automobiles, créera à son usine de Traxle à Guelph, 271 emplois nécessitant des personnes très qualifiées.

For its part, this government will provide up to $2.6 million for training for new employees hired under the program, as well as for Linamar's current employees. Linamar employs 1,100 people in Guelph and another 207 elsewhere in Ontario. Linamar currently spends between $10,000 and $15,000 on training for each of its workers through a comprehensive company program.

At Linamar this morning, the company's chief executive officer, Mr Frank Hasenfratz, said the Jobs Ontario Training fund had been a major factor in its decision to expand its workforce here in Ontario rather than in the United States.

We all know that unemployment is a human tragedy that saps the energy of the individuals affected as well as their families.

Le chômage est une tragédie humaine qui épuise l'énergie des individus ainsi que celle de leur famille.

High levels of unemployment also sap society's and government's resources, and Ontario can no longer afford this terrible waste of human potential.

The jobs I'm announcing today will be taken up by those hardest hit by the recession: people who must rely on social assistance and those whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out. Linamar's hiring practices will also respect equity goals.

The hardship of having to rely on social assistance is unacceptable to a government committed, as we are, to social justice, so we are working to ensure the jobs Linamar announced are only the beginning of the 100,000 new jobs we expect to stimulate over the next three years through the Jobs Ontario Training fund.

Yesterday the Treasurer announced that we shall be investing $360 million in Ontario's physical infrastructure through the Jobs Ontario Capital fund.

Mon annonce d'aujourd'hui complémente l'annonce du Trésorier hier au sujet du boulot Ontario Capital. C'est un investissement dans le peuple de l'Ontario et dans leurs habiletés.

My announcement today complements that strategy. It is an investment in the people of Ontario and their skills.

We shall make available $1.1 billion through the three years of this program for employment training and support, such as child care.

When employers buy into the Jobs Ontario Training fund they are eligible for a training credit of up to $10,000 for each job created under the program. At least half of that money must be used to train the new employee, but the rest may be used to train the staff they already have.

Delivery of training and employment support services will be coordinated, in the main, by local brokers in partnership with their communities. I want to stress the word "partnership," because the Jobs Ontario Training fund is rooted in partnership, a partnership between government, employers, trainers, workers and communities in Ontario.

The Jobs Ontario Training fund is a winning proposition for everyone: for the long-term unemployed who get back to work and, at the same time, upgrade their skills; for employers like Linamar, which benefit from the training credit to sharpen their competitive edge; for the government, which has reduced social assistance costs as a result, and for the province of Ontario, which sees its economy regenerated.

Boulot Ontario Formation est une proposition gagnante pour tout le monde: pour les travailleurs, les travailleuses, les employeurs et les gouvernements.

The agreement I signed this morning is the first of many that will be signed with Ontario businesses, both large and small. The response to the Jobs Ontario Training fund has been keen and enthusiastic. It is an enlightened program based not on wage subsidies but on sheer good common sense.

RESPONSES

JOBS ONTARIO TRAINING FUND

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to respond to the minister's statement on the job strategy and to say to him that I think the announcement indicates that the government doesn't understand the magnitude of the unemployment problem.

Certainly this move is fine and it's welcome. It's 271 jobs and we appreciate that, just as the Treasurer's announcement yesterday for the capital projects was important, although I would point out that yesterday's announcement does represent fewer dollars for jobs and capital this year than last year.

But with respect to the minister's announcement today on 271 jobs, I want to put it into perspective for him. I hope you realize that every single day that your government has been in power 435 more people have joined the unemployed ranks. Every single day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, the unemployment ranks have grown by 435 people. That's not to diminish the importance of 271 jobs, but I would say to the minister, you have to appreciate we're dealing with a huge problem here and you've got to get at solving it: 435 people every single day.

In terms of the impact, in the month of June we already know about 12 more plant closures -- already announced, already published by the Minister of Labour. We know there are going to be 290 people at Certified Brakes laid off as a result of a plant closure; 296 people in Trenton, Murata Erie North America; 335 people in Hamilton, Robinson's Department Stores. The point I'm making is that 271 jobs are important, but we're dealing here with a crisis. We're dealing with a need for a government to get on to tackle a major problem in employment in this province. Yesterday we had the Treasurer reannounce his budget announcement and that's fine, but it's fewer jobs than last year. We have 271 jobs today, which we welcome, but you've got to get on with your economic plan, and it is stalled, as far as we can see.

I'll quote the five elements in your economic renewal plan that the Premier announced. One that you have direct responsibility for is OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. You may remember, Minister, that the Premier, in the speech from the throne, promised as part of the big economic renewal plan this session, the one that will end in a few weeks, "We will introduce legislation that will make Ontario a leader in training with the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board." We haven't seen that legislation yet. Where is that legislation that you promised? Where is the legislation? We want to know how you're planning to set this up. Well, bring in the legislation if it's so important. We want to see that legislation.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): You're a great help, I've got to tell you. Wonderful, great assistance. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Phillips: The second element of the Premier's economic renewal plan was the worker ownership plan. The worker ownership plan is an extremely important bill, but here we find on the worker ownership, I might say, that the organizations that can manage the venture capital part are the unions, and that's fine. They're the ones that can manage it, but the major trade organization in the province of Ontario, the Ontario Federation of Labour, said it doesn't want to do it. So the second element of your economic renewal plan, the one that is going to solve the job problem, is not going to work. The OFL already said it doesn't want to be involved in it.

The other part of that is the worker buyout. The Steelworkers union said to the government: "You're wrong on it. Change it. You're going to be subject to all sorts of countervail. Change the legislation." We couldn't persuade the committee to change it, so Leo Gerard and the Steelworkers are going to be furious when they see what the government's done with that bill, because they say it will no doubt be subject to countervail by the US and make the bill essentially useless for their purposes.

The third element is the Ontario investment fund. Again, the Premier had said we would be seeing that, that it would be coming forward. Where is it?

The fourth element is the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who promised us the industrial strategy, the blueprint that the government was going to follow for getting on with creating jobs. Where is it? Where is that industrial strategy?

The fifth element of the economic renewal plan the Premier promised was the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. We've seen those and they will be the subject of some considerable debate, but I submit to the House that the bill and the debate that will take place will do more to slow down job creation in this province than virtually anything else we could consider.

So I say to the Minister, we welcome the 271 jobs, although 15 hours from now they will be gone if you keep up the pace of unemployment that you're creating in the province. But we still welcome that. I would say to the minister that we are looking for this government to get on with the real economic renewal plan that it promised and not to be tinkering with the economy in this province.

1400

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I want to first of all thank the Linamar company for its undertaking. I understand they spend between $10,000 and $15,000 on training, and I think that's admirable. I think everybody agrees that we need to have training. In fact, we called for that in New Directions on October 31 of last year. We said we need to link the provisions to jobs, retraining, training and apprenticeship programs. I'm glad to see that some things coming out of that program were taken advantage of.

The board of trade, however, in talking about your training programs, even today, when it talks about the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, says that the work you're doing with OTAB has been hastily pulled together, hastily thought out and mostly rammed through. So I would say to the minister who is here, while we are looking at some good programs, the people from the board of trade are saying very clearly that there are some problems, as has the chamber of commerce, which said of the OTAB process, "In our view, such decisions should not be taken until the province has had further province-wide consultation and has concluded and the views of all constituents are taken into consideration."

I want the minister to know very clearly that everybody agrees we need training. There are some very serious concerns with OTAB. I'm very pleased that we have companies that are going to invest in skills and training. I believe the standard of living of the next generation will be in direct proportion to the skills and training we give our people. But it was interesting to note that the only people who are investing in Ontario today are those who are getting some type of government handout. Nobody is coming to Ontario.

Yesterday the Treasurer came back from his whirlwind tour of the world. He didn't announce one, not one, international investment coming to the province, not one. On that entire trip, he didn't have anything invested by people coming from other jurisdictions. I submit to you the reason is your labour legislation; your regulation and all your overgovernance is driving businesses out. That's not the least of it. I hope some of the international people gave the Treasurer an earful on a lot of the taxes, which are 20% to 50% higher.

We all believe we need skills and training for the people of this province. It's fortunate we have companies like Linamar that represent some of that investment and are doing it on their own. The fact of the matter is, though, that since you've come to power we have lost 250,000 jobs in the province. Today you announced 271. We will need thousands, literally thousands, more announcements like this today just to get back to where we were before you characters took over in Ontario. That is a problem, because investment is not coming here because of your policies.

We compliment the odd company out there, but we say to you that the only people coming to Ontario, the only people investing are those who get a handout from the government. If we are truly going to solve the problems of unemployment, we can't do it without a better investment climate.

I would say to the Treasurer, you took some of our points out of New Directions. Hopefully, you'll read it again and take some of the good things out of it because, if not, we're going to be in sad shape. We're going to need a thousand more announcements just to get back to where we are because, quite frankly, we have lost more jobs during this recession than any other province. This has been an Ontario-led recession. While we are happy for the people in Guelph, this won't solve the problems. As I've often said before, we are dealing with mice in the basement, while there are elephants on the roof.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): In the absence of the Premier, I'll address my question to the Minister of the Environment. As I've indicated in the past, it's our intention to continue to ask questions of the Premier when he's present in the House about statements he has made, despite the fact that he keeps referring these questions to the minister. We intend to keep asking the questions until we feel we're getting a direct reply.

The Premier has made promises to the people of the greater Toronto area. He promised there would be no dump in the Rouge. Now the Rouge is a potential dump site. The Premier promised the people of this province that if there are going to be any new sites, they have to be subject to the fullest kind of environmental assessment and that environmental assessment has to be done on a basis that is seen by everyone to be fair.

It's quite obvious that the residents of York region, who have been protesting here today, do not perceive the process this government is now engaged in to be either full or fair. I would ask the minister why she and her government have retreated so completely from the promises that were made by their leader with respect to the fullest kind of environmental assessment on landfill sites in the GTA, and how will she respond to the concerns of the people of York region who were here today?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I'll try to respond as directly as I can to the Leader of the Opposition but I want to assure her that it is a fair and open process to determine the best landfill sites for the greater Toronto area and it is a full environmental assessment.

All I can say to the people of York and the people of any other region that is attempting to locate a landfill site is that I recognize nobody is going to want one in his particular community, but the fact remains that we all create waste and the most environmentally acceptable way of disposing of it is reducing it as much as possible -- we're trying to do that -- and then finding a landfill site within the area in which it was generated and that's the process the Interim Waste Authority Ltd is following.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I want to say to the minister first of all that the poison she planted in York region initiated this whole problem, when she made a decision, I guess with the assistance of the Premier and her parliamentary assistant, based not on environmental considerations but only on her own arbitrary assessment of the facts, that Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is going to go to York region.

I want to say to the minister that decision will not be accepted by the people of York region. I want to tell the minister there were some 200 people from the community of Georgina out in front of this parliamentary building today determined to make sure that decision she made arbitrarily will not hold.

But I want to ask the minister this question. Her parliamentary assistant, the member for Durham-York, was also at the rally today, but prior to today her parliamentary assistant, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment, met with ratepayers in York region and said to the ratepayers of York region that as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of the Environment he would make sure there would never be a dump in Georgina. I want to ask the minister, how does that square with your commitment that the decision would not be made on a political basis?

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I feel that my privilege as a member in this Legislature has come into question when I am being misquoted by the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I have witnesses, my friend.

Mr O'Connor: I never said that at any point in time at a public meeting in my constituency, if he's referring to a meeting that took place last Thursday night. I would ask him to withdraw it.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Durham-York, while I appreciate the point of order he raises, it is clearly a difference of opinion between two members of the House or between two sides of the House. It's not the Speaker's position to determine the veracity of statements made in the House. The question has been asked of the Minister of the Environment for a response.

Hon Mrs Grier: First of all, the member for Durham-York is not my parliamentary assistant as Minister of the Environment; he's my parliamentary assistant as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. That's the first fact that's wrong.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: Second, the member for York Centre was not present at the meeting where he is alleging statements were made by my parliamentary assistant for the office of the greater Toronto area. Third, the member for Durham-York is perfectly entitled, as a representative of the citizens of York, to work with them, to participate in the process, to make sure that the process is open and fair, and that is exactly what the member for Durham-York told his constituents he was going to do.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I want to ask the minister to look at the human dimension of what she has unleashed, not only on York region but throughout the greater Toronto area, because the people in York region do not feel that what is happening is fair.

If you go, Mr Speaker, to the many meetings that have been held now over the last several weeks and talk to the individuals who have come to those meetings, if you were out today in front of this Legislature talking in some cases to young farmers who are starting out with their farms, with their hopes and dreams in front of them, if you talk to older residents who have lived in a number of these areas, and not just in Georgina but in all of the other areas of York region where sites are being proposed, what you hear is people saying, "Why? Why? Why?"

My question to the minister is this: Seeing the reaction that is sweeping like a firestorm throughout the whole area, would the minister not agree that the best thing to do right now is to stop and to say that this policy where you declare arbitrarily that York region will take Metropolitan Toronto's garbage is unfair and unjust and you've got to go back to the drawing board? Will you do that, Minister?

1410

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, let me say to the member that I know the human dimension and I recognize the pain and the fear and the apprehension of all the people in all the areas where landfill sites are being sought, whether they be the GTA or anywhere else across this province. I have met with those people. I met those people when I was in opposition; I have met with those people since I became the minister.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): You made promises to them on the election platform. You met them all right.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I met with them in Marmora. I met with people from Plympton. I met with people from the north. I met with people from Pickering --

Mr Scott: It's the biggest flip-flop we've ever seen.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St George-St David.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- who said on the previous process, "Why my community?" I agreed with them. Just to pick an area and say arbitrarily, "That will be where the landfill will go," is most unfair and impossible to defend, which is why with the utmost conviction and care what we have constructed is an Interim Waste Authority with a mandate, with legislation that is charged with the responsibility of using the most open and fair process to find a site.

That's why, when the members opposite ask me to intervene at this point on behalf of one set of constituents as opposed to another set of constituents, I have to say that's precisely the kind of political interference in the environmental assessment process that has led us to the crisis that this government is trying to solve in the fairest and most open way possible.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, we were aware that the Premier would not be here today, but we did expect the Minister of Labour to be here and, in the absence of the Premier, my second question was to be directed to the Minister of Labour. Is he still expected, or shall I stand down my question?

The Speaker: He is expected.

Mrs McLeod: May I stand down my question until he arrives then?

The Speaker: Yes.

Mrs McLeod: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Mr Speaker, my question is to the minister of dumps, who seems to be a very popular person today. Hundreds of people, Minister, stopped by today to dump all over the way you've been handling this search for garbage disposal. There are dozens of communities --

The Speaker: The Minister of Health is not present in the chamber.

Mr Harris: -- whose futures have been put on hold. There are houses --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): He did not refer to the Minister of Health, Mr Speaker. You might ask him to whom he referred.

The Speaker: I may be in error, but I thought I heard the leader of the third party place his question to the Minister of Health, who is not in the chamber.

Mr Harris: It was the minister of dumps, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Which minister do you wish to address?

Mr Harris: If the Minister of Health claims jurisdiction over that, if she wishes to answer it, fine. But whoever would like to answer the question concerning environment is the one I'm directing it to.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Would the leader take his seat. I would appreciate it if the leader could identify a minister of the crown who is seated in the chamber to whom he wishes to place his question.

Mr Harris: For the fifth time, the Minister of the Environment, responsible for dumps in the province. Mr Speaker, through you to the minister, hundreds of people stopped by today to dump all over the way you are looking to dump garbage in their backyards.

Their futures have been put on hold; 57 communities are now told by real estate agents that they must disclose before they can sell their home that their house is such-and-such a distance from a potential dump. Many can't figure out how on earth their community ever ended up on the list of 57 sites, given that it was not the intention of their council to have a dump in that particular location.

Minister, these people want to know -- one of the things they want to know -- are you satisfied that all 57 sites that were identified, where now homes cannot be sold, are viable environmental options, or do you intend to delist some of those options before the process goes any further and, if so, why wouldn't you do that now so they can get on with their lives?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'd be very glad to explain to the leader of the third party the process that has been followed in arriving at the 57 candidate sites throughout the greater Toronto area.

The Interim Waste Authority began last summer to establish a set of criteria against which to evaluate potential sites for landfill. They consulted broadly and identified areas where waste landfill sites should not go. They then published a list of draft criteria. In response to the consultation process, they revised those criteria. Having determined what those criteria ought to be, they then applied those criteria in the regions of the greater Toronto area where they were seeking landfill sites, and as a result of the application of those criteria, 57 areas were determined to be candidate sites for landfill.

The movement from that list of candidate sites to a shorter list and finally to a preferred site will require much more extensive evaluation, testing and examination, and that's precisely what the Interim Waste Authority is presently engaged in doing.

Mr Harris: Minister, to many of these people, it jumps out at them so obviously that even sites that are not in their communities shouldn't have been on the list in the first place. They don't understand why you consider all 57 to be viable.

I suggest to you, not only should you consider removing many of these obviously sensitive sites from the list; you also should be adding another realistic option, that option being the Kirkland Lake option, or what has become known as the willing host option. Minister, you know the Kirkland Lake option desperately needs more garbage than it can generate from within its own region to get the hundreds of recycling jobs that will flow with that size of an operation. You are denying them that opportunity.

I would ask you, Minister: Do you not believe it is your responsibility, not only to come forward with those obvious sensitive sites that should be delisted today, but also that you should come forward and make sure all options are explored in order to find the most environmentally sound solution, ie, put the willing host, Kirkland Lake solution back on the table?

Hon Mrs Grier: There are almost two questions, and if I could say to the leader of the third party, I hope anyone who approaches him, as anybody who approaches us or the opposition, about the process and about the criteria will be directed to the criteria document of the Interim Waste Authority, because it's precisely the refining of those criteria, the participation in the arguments for and against those criteria, that I hope all the people here today and all the people in the greater Toronto area will do over the next few months to make sure that whatever ultimate site is selected is environmentally viable.

With respect to his question on Kirkland Lake, I find it remarkable that the leader of the third party doesn't understand that the criterion of a happy host is not one that is found in the Environmental Assessment Act.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Mrs Grier: But maybe it isn't so surprising, because after all, before the last election, this member recommended a class environmental assessment for waste management sites. He didn't even support a full environmental assessment of any waste management site.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: That's a lie, Madam Minister.

The Speaker: I ask the leader of the third party to quite seriously reconsider what he has just said. He knows it's unparliamentary.

Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw. I have no further questions of any minister who's going to stand in the House and lie to me. No further questions.

The Speaker: The leader of the third party, I realize that --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member knows that he --

Mr Harris: I withdraw any comments that offend you. I have no further questions.

1420

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions. Section 289 of the Liberal Bill 68 requires that an adequacy report on the no-fault benefits schedule of the Ontario motorist protection plan be filed within two years. The deadline for that report is June 30, next week.

The minister has not filed a report on adequacy. What he has filed is a letter, a letter that contains absolutely no analysis whatsoever of the existing benefits schedule. It is merely a four-paragraph letter. It's a collection of promotional material for his proposed legislation. In short, this report, which was filed while this House wasn't even sitting, is an absolute embarrassment. Mr Minister, the Insurance Act requires that an adequacy report be filed by June 30. Where is that report?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): The member is perfectly correct that this minister has tabled a letter dealing with the question of the adequacy of Bill 68. The member suggests that this is an inadequate response on the part of the minister.

Let me suggest to you that this minister tabled legislation in this House last December. Along with that legislation, he released a report, The Road Ahead: Ontario's Strategy for Automobile Insurance Reform, which defined the serious inadequacies of the existing legislation both in terms of the benefits package and in terms of a whole number of other issues which the legislation hasn't dealt with, such as the Facility Association.

We have sat down with the industry over the last 10 months and worked out a package which the industry passed a week and a half or two weeks ago and is proceeding now to submit to the Insurance Commission of Ontario. Earlier this spring we released a most extensive package of draft regulations amending the legislation that currently is in place. I think the approach we've taken to proceeding with legislative reform is a particularly adequate response to the adequacy of the current legislation.

Mr Tilson: I think the meagre response is self-explanatory. The Road Ahead is not an adequacy report; it's a PR job. That's all it's doing. It's pushing a report that even you don't believe in. A year ago this past Christmas you supported a bill supporting returning to the tort system, and you're coming forward with this sort of thing. I believe the minister has seriously attempted to mislead us with this so-called report.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Dufferin-Peel: The member should know that it is not parliamentary to suggest that another member of the House has misled you or misled the House, or anyone else for that matter. I would ask him to consider what I've just said and ask him to withdraw the remark which he made.

Mr Tilson: I don't want to breach the etiquette of this House, but I certainly think the minister has not filed what he is supposed to file, and that is an adequacy report. I will say that.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The member needs to say those magic words, of which there are only two: "I withdraw." I would appreciate hearing those words right now from the member.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, I will withdraw the remarks that have offended you.

This letter doesn't do what it's supposed to do. It hasn't talked about the decreased rates Bill 68 was supposed to bring forward. There have been statements made by the Insurance Bureau of Canada -- and I know you're aware of them, Mr Minister -- that under Bill 164 insurance rates will increase by a minimum of 20% and, in the cases of senior citizens, young people and new drivers of this province, they'll increase by as much as 50%. You have that information; the insurance industry has given that to you. Where is the minister's proof, other than this meaningless four-paragraph letter --

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Tilson: Where is the minister's proof that auto insurance premiums will go down?

Hon Mr Charlton: There are two things the member has raised in his question. In the preamble, he again talked about our need and my responsibility to comment on the adequacy of the existing legislation. Ministers who find legislation inadequate and table reports suggesting its inadequacy are in my view just stallers and ditherers. Ministers who find legislation inadequate and proceed to implement legislative reform are making comment on the inadequacy of existing legislation and proceeding to deal with that inadequacy. That's the approach this minister has taken.

The member also referred in his question to the IBC's comments about 20% and 50%. I should point out that the IBC -- and he should read words carefully -- has suggested that costs, not premiums, will increase and that the current system is dramatically overpriced. This minister has actuarial studies, as the Insurance Bureau does, and we will be implementing this package without premium increase.

Mr Tilson: Stop dithering and release those reports. If you have information that costs are going up or rates are going up because of this terrible legislation, this House should see it. Your legislation will make it next to impossible for a company to get out of the auto insurance business or to leave this province because of this proposed legislation. If a company wants to do that, under your legislation it must pay a levy or a penalty, a penalty to simply leave the business. Is this what your government's new business strategy is to encourage people to get into this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: The withdrawal provisions in the legislation are not provisions that are designed to penalize honest, straightforward businesses. The member well knows that a company that goes out into the marketplace and sells insurance policies has an obligation to deliver what it has promised in that insurance policy.

The withdrawal provisions we're putting in this legislation are to deal with an inadequacy that has existed since the Tories were the government and an inadequacy in the legislation that was maintained under the Liberals, where they put in place no protection for the consumers of this province if a company went out and sold policies and then decided to exit the market without delivering the product.

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with her second leadoff question.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I'll return to the Minister of Labour. It is a fact that since September 1990, 95,000 men and women have lost tourism-sector jobs. Destinations like Benmiller Inn near Goderich are in receivership, and Elgin House and Lakeside Lodge near Port Carling are closed. These are just representative of some of Ontario's finest tourist destinations. They just can't make it in this economic climate, and they need all the help they can get.

In our discussions with people in the tourism industry, they tell us they are very concerned about this minister's labour law reforms. I would ask the minister if he can tell us whether he is hearing the concerns of this particular industry, whether he's prepared to listen to those concerns and how he will respond to them.

1430

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I think it's a legitimate question. I want the leader of the official opposition to understand that there are many groups that are involved in the tourism industry. Of the 334 groups that met with us in the course of the discussion process and paper we went through in Ontario, we have listened to them, as we have to all the groups, very intently. We have already made changes to the bill, as the member knows if she has taken a look at it, that reflect some of those discussions, and we certainly intend to continue listening to the various business groups in the province.

Mrs McLeod: I would stress to the minister that the concerns we're hearing are concerns that continue to exist after people in the industry, as well as ourselves, have reviewed the specific proposals the minister has put before the House.

The province's restaurants are a very important component of the tourism sector, as the minister well knows. They are telling us that they expect to be particularly hard hit by the Labour Relations Act changes. They're saying that closing a restaurant for less than a week with a strike likely means bankruptcy for that company. The restaurant's cash runs out and its customers go away.

People in the restaurant industry know that the government is determined to proceed with the Ontario Labour Relations Act amendments. They don't like it and they're afraid of what its impact will be, but they are making proposals to try to minimize the damage to their particular sector. They have suggested a temporary ban on the replacement worker prohibition during strikes in their industry. That way they can stave off bankruptcy while labour negotiations continue.

I would ask the minister whether he would agree to consider an amendment to his Labour Relations Act legislation that would allow for a temporary ban on the prohibition of replacement workers in the restaurant industry, or whether he is prepared to consider some kind of amendment that would respond to the concerns of this sector.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it very difficult to understand how the restaurant industry itself is likely to be under much more pressure than it might be now, and I'm hoping that what the leader of the official opposition is saying is not that she just thinks that workers in that particular industry, if they should desire to organize, do not have the right. I think that would be a tragedy.

What will happen in terms of the further hearings with this bill before us we will find out at that point in time; we will listen to the arguments. But it would be very difficult, to be up front with the member as well, to pull out certain groups and exempt them from the provisions of the legislation.

Mrs McLeod: Surely the minister is not suggesting that people in that sector do not have the right to organize under existing legislation. I hope he will not take what he has considered to be a legitimate question and try to simplify it by reverting back to a response which simply isn't relevant to the real complications this legislation is now creating.

I raise the concern because we know that restaurant chains are losing money. Last year restaurants made an average profit of 3% before repaying their debt and this year is just as bad. Since 1990 the restaurant industry has been forced to cut 30% of its workforce because of tough economic times. This government's legislation will make things even tougher; yes, indeed, Mr Minister, even tougher for people in the restaurant sector. We all believe that the labour relations amendments will cost jobs in this province. We have been asking this minister and his government to carry out studies on the job loss impact of the legislative proposals, and the government has refused to do that.

If the minister will not undertake a study on the effects of the OLRA changes on the entire provincial economy, will he at least commit to completing a study on the effect of the labour law changes on Ontario's tourism and hospitality sectors?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As I tried to indicate, I have met with the tourist industry and representatives from it and from the restaurant industry and talked to them extensively on this particular issue. I am not, at this point in time, going to suggest that we can exempt any particular group, but I think we will have another round of hearings on this particular piece of legislation. We are not trying to oversimplify anything that's in the OLRA amendments.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): My question is to the Minister of the Environment. The minister has been trying to assure residents of the greater Toronto area that she is trying to site new landfill sites without any political interference. If that were only true in Windsor and Essex county. The minister received in September 1991 a then secret letter from the federal NDP member Steven Langdon.

Mr Langdon said, in his then secret letter: "Dear Ruth: "The Maidstone Against Dumping organization is an extremely effective and influential political action group in my constituency, with which I have worked very closely over a number of years." Then Mr Langdon goes on to list a number of reasons why the landfill should not be expanded or why there should be no landfill in his constituency. I want to know from the minister why she allows such unacceptable political interference.

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment): I don't know whether a letter from a member of Parliament is any more political interference than a question from the member of the opposition. What matters is the response to the letter. When the member says that it was a secret letter, let me assure him that Mr Langdon's letters are never secret. There are in fact copies, I suspect, sent in many directions, and that particular letter has been in the public domain for quite some time.

I responded to Mr Langdon as I respond to anybody else who asks me about landfill siting, that in fact there is a process that has to be followed and that it will be followed. That was my reply.

Mr Mancini: The then secret letter was made public via a brown paper envelope which came from within the ministry. The issue at stake here --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier, Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Secret letter? Everybody already had it.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Mancini: Yes. I wonder if the NDP is going to call the OPP to investigate how that letter became public.

The issue at stake here is one of credibility and objectiveness in the environmental assessment process. Mr Langdon said in his then secret letter, "The school crisis in Essex county showed how determined and articulate groups could damage our government and party." That's what Mr Langdon said. He further went on to say, "I urge you to look to Colchester North," which is a small municipality in another federal constituency.

I want to know from the Minister of the Environment how the people of Windsor and Essex county could have any faith whatsoever in you and in fairness in the system when we have secret letters like this floating around, when we know full well that Mr Langdon addresses you as "Dear Ruth," and he ends up by saying, "Please, keep in touch on this issue" and "Best personal regards"? How can we be assured that the landfill site in Windsor and Essex county will be sited based on only the best environmental assessment and information and not based on what's good for you, your government or your party?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think the member underestimates the efforts and the very hard work that has been undergone by the Essex-Windsor waste management committee. That committee has been struggling with a long-standing problem in that area. It has been working very hard to implement the 3Rs and it has been doing a very good job, and I have been meeting with it and attempting to move the process forward.

I have no control over people who write to me, but I can certainly give the member my complete assurance that letters I may receive, be they from federal members or from local members, asking me to interfere in the process will be ignored.

1440

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question for the Solicitor General. My question involves the comments of the parliamentary assistant to the Premier that were made over the weekend. Many of the police in this province consider the comment, "No one seems to have a problem in identifying us when they want to shoot us," as a racist slur against police. Since that's the only word they've heard on this from the parliamentary assistant to the Premier -- they've not heard anything from their representative in cabinet, the top cop, so to speak, the Solicitor General -- I would ask you, as the representative of all police officers in this province, do you condone the statement that was made by the parliamentary assistant to the Premier?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I can't pass judgement on comments of other members. I don't know the context in which they were made or even when they were made.

I can point out to the leader of the third party, however, that the Ministry of the Solicitor General has been absolutely in the forefront of developing and enhancing race relations in this province, whether it be through our own race relations and policing unit or whether it be through community policing and community programs by police detachments throughout this province. I think they have done a good job.

That is not to say there isn't a much greater job to be done, but we are all very active in the achievement of the goal to better serve our multicultural and multiracial society. I think we are making gains and we should continue to work in a very positive way towards the achievement of those goals and directions.

Mr Harris: Would the Solicitor General not agree with me, with the police and with many of the outraged citizens of Ontario that the language in the quote is precisely the kind of inflammatory statement we are trying to avoid, that we are trying to discredit on all sides and indeed that we are certainly not wanting to legitimize? On that basis, Mr Solicitor General, would you not agree that the parliamentary assistant to the Premier should resign?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, I'm not aware of the comments that were made or the context in which they were presented. I would rather confine my comments to the positive kind of orientation I indicated in the initial response.

INCINERATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area and Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat. The member for Durham West.

Mr Wiseman: Over the past few weeks there have been many meetings throughout the GTA where communities have gathered to express their concerns about the identification of 57 candidate landfill sites. I believe these meetings are absolutely important for the residents of these communities.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Wiseman: Even though I believe in the democratic process, it seems that the opposition would rather shout me down than hear the question.

I attended a large number of these meetings when the Liberals were attempting to dump P1 down our throats in north Pickering when they were in power, so I know the importance of making sure that the information at these meetings is accurate, that everyone can work from the information and that they understand the process.

I am greatly concerned about the amount of information people need to know, so I have a question to the minister. Mr Speaker, I see you've become antsy in your chair. One of the questions that continues to arise and to be asked is about incineration and the option of incineration. I would like to ask the minister again, why has incineration been ruled out?

Hon Ruth A. Grier (Minister of the Environment and Minister Responsible for the Greater Toronto Area): I'm glad to answer that because I certainly don't believe that any of the citizens who are unhappy about the thought that there might be a landfill site in their community would be any happier if there was going to be an incinerator in their community, which is what the opposition seems to advocate.

Incineration is not an environmental solution to waste management. First of all, it does not contribute to waste reduction, waste reuse and waste recycling. The elements that can best be recycled are in fact those that burn at the highest temperatures, and once you've built a very capital-intensive incinerator, you then have to continue to provide product for it to burn as opposed to trying to reduce the amount of that product. Second, the more effective the devices in the stack to prevent emissions, the more toxic the ash, and you still have to find a landfill site for that toxic ash. When you compare both the capital and the operating costs of an incinerator, they are far greater, more than 15 times greater, than those of a landfill.

Mr Wiseman: In your response you mentioned emissions. We all know air pollution is a major problem, and through the burning of waste, we know byproducts are created. In fact, we know it is such a major problem that the member for Markham just moved a motion a few weeks ago asking that the Minister of the Environment make stronger the air emission control standards and limits on acid rain. Could the minister explain to us what would be the result of these byproducts -- the dioxins, furans and toxins -- that would be created through the burning and incineration of waste?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is not an incinerator anywhere which burns municipal solid waste that does not have harmful emissions. The health effects of those emissions are becoming more apparent. I was reading just yesterday that in Florida the emissions of mercury from municipal solid waste incinerators are very high.

Our government has taken the position that as we strive to control pollution we have to take a multimedia approach, which means that it is not good enough merely to transfer the problem from the land to the air. We know that what goes into the air falls into the water and that airborne toxic chemicals are a major contributor to the degradation of the Great Lakes. Incinerators, in short, are not an environmental solution to waste management.

MORTGAGE BROKERS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

When the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations proposes to revoke the licence of real estate or mortgage brokers who engage in unscrupulous practices, the broker whose licence is about to be revoked can appeal to the Commercial Registration Appeal Tribunal, and until the appeal tribunal has a hearing and makes a decision, that person can continue to practise. For example, when a mortgage broker is charged with defrauding investors and borrowers and the ministry gives notice that the broker's licence is about to be revoked, that broker may appeal the decision to the appeal tribunal. During that time, the ministry cannot act and the broker can continue to function until the decision is made by the tribunal.

With this being the process, does the minister not agree that it is in the best interests of the ministry that the appeal process take place as quickly as possible to ensure that bad operators are removed from the public scene and do not have the opportunity to defraud investors?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): The process that's in place is twofold. Partly it's to protect the consumer, as you suggested, but the aspect of the real estate agent being able to appeal his or her case is something that is important to the process, and to date, that is the way it has worked. If you have a particular case that you want to bring to my attention where there's a problem, then I'd be happy to look at this, but at this --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Has the minister completed her response?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, my answer is completed.

1450

Mr Kwinter: Just so the minister understands the question I asked, I want to know whether the minister feels this process is important. Obviously she does.

My supplementary is this: If indeed it is important that these appeals be heard and that they be heard expeditiously so that these bad apples, so to speak, can be removed from the commercial scene, why would the ministry shut down this tribunal for three months because it claims it didn't have any money? The whole system was closed down in December and did not open up until April 1 in the next fiscal period. During that time there were many members of the real estate, business broker and mortgage broker community who had their licences revoked, who launched appeals, but those appeals could not be heard because there was no appeal board. The appeal board was not functioning, and these people were allowed to be out in the community practising, the way they had practised in the past, and putting at risk members of this community who did not understand that these people were under the particular revocation of their licences.

Could you answer that for me, and could you also give me an assurance that it won't happen again?

Hon Ms Churley: Certainly I can answer that question for the member. There were problems at CRAT, and he's quite aware that there had been problems. I've been working with that administration for some time to try to streamline the operations, and we have, in fact, come up with a number of revisions to the way the cases are heard. We have made the --

Interjection.

Hon Ms Churley: Do you want to hear the answer or not? We have made the hearings more efficient than they ever have been in the past.

It is quite true there were problems for some time. In fact, if you will look at the situation now, it is greatly improved. I agree with you that there was a problem for a short time, and I wasn't happy about it. There has been vast improvement since the time I took over this office and decided to try to deal with the problems that have existed there for quite some time. In fact, I'm dealing with them right now and it has improved.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): My question is for the Solicitor General. For several months now the Ontario Provincial Police have been seriously understaffed and underfunded because you won't provide them with the financial resources to hire and train new recruits.

Since last June when you imposed a hiring freeze for the OPP, a total of 83 officers have left the force through attrition. None of these officers has been replaced, and this staff shortage has resulted in more than 100 OPP detachments operating less than 24 hours a day.

Last week in your statement on the police use of force you told the House that "the government's objectives are public and officer safety," and that "the people of Ontario expect and deserve a high level of public safety and security."

Will the minister tell the House how he reconciles those statements with his refusal to hire new OPP recruits, why he hasn't approved these hirings, and does he think it's appropriate for more than 100 OPP detachments to be closed during the overnight period?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): First of all, it never was the case throughout Ontario that there was OPP coverage for 24 hours. There were always detachments that operated on the same basis as the situation we have now, though I must agree with the member opposite that there is a growing number now compared to previously.

I think it's fair to say as well that the police-to-population ratio with respect to the OPP is the same today as it was 10 years ago, and I think that fact should be noted.

I think it should be noted as well, in terms of the people who have retired or left the service of the OPP and have not been replaced as a result of a hiring freeze, that we are aware of that circumstance, although I think in fairness we must indicate that the estimates by the commissioner of the OPP of those who would retire in 1991 were not achieved. People did not leave as expected, and therefore in terms of those budget estimates we had, in fact, overhired for the 1991 year.

In terms of this year's estimates that have been approved, this fiscal year's hiring has not been accomplished to date. They are under review, and I hope to have some announcement with respect to the question of resourcing and staffing in the near future, which I hope will be welcome news to the member opposite.

Mr Runciman: The Solicitor General's ministry is currently involved in contract negotiations with the Ontario Provincial Police Association. I'm told that the ministry has $7 million sitting in its budget which can be used to hire new OPP recruits, but this money is being held back as a bargaining chip in contract talks. This money would be adequate to recruit 125 urgently needed OPP recruits, yet no action has been taken. This bargaining chip is keeping more than 100 OPP detachments closed overnight, despite the fact that close to 15,000 Ontarians mailed coupons to the minister telling him that they want their detachments open on a 24-hour basis.

Minister, if you were to commit today to hiring 125 OPP recruits, because of the training requirements those recruits wouldn't be on the street to protect the public for another 14 months. The time to act is now.

Will the minister confirm that the money required for this hiring of recruits is in his budget; will he admit that he's holding it back as a bargaining chip with the OPP association, and will he commit today to allocating these funds to immediately hire and train OPP recruits?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As the member opposite will recognize and obviously does recognize, the process of contract negotiations is not a subject matter I can discuss with him or anyone else in this public venue, but we are anxious for a very successful conclusion with respect to those negotiations. I hope and I feel relatively sure that they will end in a very positive vein and in a circumstance that will be pleasing to all those involved.

I will add, though, that through the budget process and other fiscal discussions the treasury board added $10 million to the previously difficult budget circumstance of the OPP, which I think will be welcome news to all those involved, and in terms of those moneys that were approved in this fiscal year and in these estimates I'm sure the benefit of those additional dollars will be seen in the not-too-distant future as well.

CHARITABLE GAMING

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, in my riding of Middlesex sports teams are starting to plan and fund-raise for the coming seasons. Many of these teams depend on the proceeds from bingos to remain viable. There's been a great deal of controversy recently over the licensing --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Middlesex.

Mrs Mathyssen: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'd like you to know that this is very important to my constituents and I would appreciate being able to ask this question of the minister.

Many of the groups I've described depend on proceeds from bingos to remain viable. There's been a great deal of controversy recently over the licensing, for example, of hockey teams to run bingos. I understand that some municipalities have been giving licences to individual teams while others are licensing only the associations and leagues. Now we hear that the government is cracking down and won't allow individual teams, like in Niagara, in rural Ontario, teams like the Strathroy Blades, to be licensed.

Minister, these are non-profit community organizations. Can you tell this House what you're going to do to give these groups the fund-raising tools they rely on so much to do the good work they do in our communities for kids who play hockey, soccer and softball?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): There certainly has been a lot of misunderstanding in the House around sports organizations' eligibility. I understand that, and members from all sides of the House have brought it to my attention, and I would say that thanks to all of those members I was able to work with the sports organizations and come up with a solution.

Part of the problem is that under the Criminal Code they're only considered charitable if they happen to be non-profit, non-professional, youth-oriented leagues and associations, and that's created some problems for the teams in that they needed flexibility for the individual teams to raise their funds.

We've revised our licensing policy so that individual teams still apply for a lottery licence through their association or their league, but they have more flexibility now to run as many lotteries and bingos as they need to in order to be able to remain viable. Municipalities have been informed of this new policy change.

1500

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): It is with much interest that I have noted ethanol fuel making headlines in Ontario. All the members are aware that the production of ethanol-blended fuel requires the fermentation of corn. The use of ethanol fuel will not only conserve our non-renewable natural resources; it will also reduce toxic emissions, all the while increasing a market for our farm produce. On this basis alone, creating a viable ethanol fuel industry in Ontario should be on top of everyone's priorities.

Even more exciting, however, is a joint proposal between the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative and Queen's University, using exclusive new technology which will only be available until July 1. Ontario farmers have the opportunity to increase production of ethanol fuel by almost three times and reduce the cost from the standard method.

My question today was going to be to the Premier, because I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food has been having a hard time getting the cooperation of the Premier. But I see that the minister of agriculture is here, so I'm going to ask him the question.

I have stood right here in the Legislature several times before, stressing the July 1 deadline. I have also sent numerous letters and shared several conversations. Minister, will you be responding to the needs of the Ontario agricultural community by assisting the Seaway Valley Farmers by the July 1 deadline?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I appreciate the member for Cornwall's question. He has been a proponent for some time of the Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative proposal to produce ethanol in eastern Ontario. I support the proposal as well. However, there's a lot of interest in the province at this point in time in the production of ethanol, and a number of different proposals have come to us both from cooperatives and from private enterprise.

As there was so much interest, an interministerial committee was set up to examine many of the proposals, and they had two days of hearings at the end of April. The Seaway Valley Farmers Energy Cooperative was at those hearings, and we listened to its proposal. From that, the interministerial committee is currently drafting a response, a discussion paper, which will suggest which of the proposals would receive or might receive support from the government.

It's unfortunate that this proposal has a July 1 deadline attached to it due to the technology from Queen's University, but I would ask the farmers in the co-op to possibly look for an extension, because I do not feel we can respond by July 1. It's a little tight for us to respond by that deadline.

Mr Cleary: Minister, I know you're trying, but while the NDP government continues to berate everyone else for causing Ontario's industry to leave the province, they should take a look in the mirror and see who is really to blame.

By not responding to the July 1 deadline, the minister is well aware that the proposal may drift outside the province. Not only will the leading edge of the ethanol technology relocate; the Minister of Agriculture and Food will have a further role, and that will be to deal with the farm industry.

I ask again: Will the minister be responding by July 1?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Nothing would make me more happy than to be able to respond by the July 1 deadline, but the interministerial committee is giving a report based on the 12 or 13 proposals; we can respond to one by July 1 and the rest of them on July 15. It's unfortunate, and again I would ask the Seaway Valley Farmers to ask Queen's University for an extension of that deadline so it meets the deadline I'm currently living with. I think then we could have a successful conclusion to this project.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired. Point of privilege, the member for Simcoe East.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: standing order 21(a), privileges in this Legislature. Last night at about 12:10, when this House adjourned, there was a vote taken with regard to debate on the rules. I'd like to know what rules there are that permit people to not vote in this Legislature. I'd also like to know what the duty of the Speaker is to allow members to not vote before you adjourn the House. I'd like your ruling on that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: To the member for Simcoe East, last evening was indeed an unusual situation. The members should know that the motion that was placed before the House was to adjourn the House. The vote that was taken was at a time past our normal adjournment. Thus, regardless of the outcome of the vote, the House was to adjourn.

It is absolutely right that there is a rule that says all members who are in the chamber have an obligation to vote either for or against. We do not have, as they do in some jurisdictions, the ability of members to abstain actively within the House. Under the circumstances, it appeared to be the most prudent thing to simply adjourn, since that was going to be the ultimate effect of voting, in any event. Had the vote not carried, this place would have been automatically adjourned.

While I recognize the member's point with respect to the procedure, I say two things, under the circumstances: (1) it was the most appropriate thing for the Chair to do at that point, and (2) no member should construe that as some kind of precedent. It was an unusual situation. I reiterate that the clock had already expired and this House was going to adjourn in any event.

I appreciate the member's bringing it to my attention.

INCINERATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Under standing order 32(a) of our rules: "Questions on matters of urgent public importance may be addressed to ministers of the crown but the Speaker shall disallow any question which he or she does not consider urgent or of public importance."

Mr Speaker, as you know, yesterday in the debate on the rules I spoke about wanting discretion in the hands of the Speaker with regard to supplementary questions. Today the member for Durham West rose in this Legislature to ask the Minister of the Environment about the use of incinerators in this province.

I'm reading Hansard from last Wednesday, June 17, at page 1410. The same member asked the Minister of the Environment, the same minister: "There seems to be the belief out there that state-of-the-art incinerators are clean and environmentally friendly and that it would be much easier to site an incinerator than it would be to site a landfill. Would the minister care to comment on this? My constituents would like to know."

I don't care whether it's a member of the government or a member of the opposition, but the question he asked today was identical to the question he asked last Wednesday. I would like to know whether or not the Speaker feels he has powers under standing order 32(a) to disallow such a question if he was aware and could remember in fact that the question was an exact repeat of another day.

The Speaker: The member for Carleton indeed brings forward an interesting proposal. I would hazard a guess that over many decades there have been questions that have been repeated in the chamber by the same member on different occasions. I think the test that the member asks for is very clear in the standing orders: Is the question urgent and/or of public importance?

There is nothing in the standing orders that indicates that because a question has been asked on one occasion it may not be asked on another occasion. To finish it off, perhaps the member might determine that on the first occasion he did not get a satisfactory reply and, hence, on another day he would wish to pose the same question again in the hope that he might get a more favourable response.

I'm afraid I cannot help the member with his point of privilege.

Motions? Petitions?

Interjection.

The Speaker: I'm sorry. Motions?

Interjection: No, that's a bill.

The Speaker: A modest amount of confusion and we're back to petitions.

1510

PETITIONS

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. You can appreciate that after a day like today, there are many petitions. I have one here signed by some 400 people in York region which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, oppose the provincial government's proposal to take prime agricultural land in King township and turn it into Metro and York region's megadump."

I have signed this petition, Mr Speaker. Thank you.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I am pleased to table a petition signed by concerned members of Knox Presbyterian Church in my riding of Oakville South, which reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not to legalize casino gambling in Ontario to increase provincial revenue."

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I have a petition here signed by 50 residents of Middlesex. This petition was circulated and sponsored by municipal councils in the county of Middlesex, and has been signed by residents of Kirkwood, Mount Bridges and Lambeth who request a reduced annexation in the county of Middlesex by the city of London, the preservation of agricultural land and the preservation of our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Mr Speaker, I have a petition signed by just one person.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas since 1988 the Ministry of Correctional Services has failed to adequately supervise and oversee the operations and administration of the Niagara Detention Centre, the ministry has failed to adequately implement the findings of the final report of the operational review of the Niagara Detention Centre submitted to the deputy minister by the operational review audit and investigation branch, dated January 11, 1988;

"Whereas the Ministry and the Niagara Detention Centre have failed to adequately respond to and formally investigate complaints from members of the public and inmates (past and present), especially those dealing with such serious and sensitive allegations of verbal harassment, intimidation, verbal and psychological abuse including that which involves racial and/or ethnic slurs, as well as non-compliance with ministry policies and procedures, detention centre standing orders and regulations of the Ministry of Correctional Services act;

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

"To direct an appropriate standing and/or select committee of the Legislature (ie, general government) to report on all matters relating to the mandate, management, organization and operation of the Ministry of Correctional Services and specifically the Niagara Detention Centre."

It is signed by one constituent, David Rabinovitch, and I've affixed my signature to the document.

LANDFILL SITES

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from 199 people from Newmarket, Keswick and Sutton:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 57 potential sites in the greater Toronto area as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill sites beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3);

"Whereas the willing host communities such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site as a possible solution to the greater Toronto area garbage issue;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future disposal options for the greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area, where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto waste."

I have signed that petition.

I have another petition from people in Mississauga.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Interim Waste Authority has released a list of 21 proposed sites in the region of Peel as possible candidates for landfill;

"Whereas the decision to prohibit the regions of the greater Toronto area from searching for landfill beyond their boundaries is contrary to the intent of the Environmental Assessment Act, section 5(3);

"Whereas the willing host communities such as Kirkland Lake will not be allowed a proper hearing to consider the Adams mine site;

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario repeal Bill 143 in its entirety and allow a more democratic process for the consideration of future options for the disposal of greater Toronto area waste, particularly the consideration of disposal sites beyond the boundaries of the greater Toronto area where a willing host community exists who is interested in developing new disposal systems for the greater Toronto area waste."

So submitted and signed by me.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I have a petition here from the people of Niagara Falls, signed by 94 of the residents.

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

"We request of you who administer the affairs of this province to make available every opportunity for the people to see and understand fully what the new Constitution and/or any amendments thereto will mean to each of us, and then make provision for a final say for the people of Ontario by way of a binding referendum."

I submit it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have 11 identical petitions signed by 279 residents of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature to "reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I've affixed my signature to the petitions.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by 32 residents of Brant-Haldimand riding.

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

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

"To abandon such plans for legalized gambling."

I have affixed my signature to the petitions.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): "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'm happy to sign it.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I'm pleased to introduce a petition signed by about 60 members of my riding.

"Whereas the lack of development of urban lands in the Galloway Road area of Scarborough is causing a loss of enjoyment of life, produces concerns by parents about the security of their children and is resulting in deterioration of the physical environment; and

"Employment and economic development are the most important priority for the residents of the area, businesses and governments,

"We call upon the government and its ministries in cooperation with the federal and municipal levels of government to investigate and report on the area with a view to urban renewal and economic development, including the Ministry of the Environment to investigate illegal dumping in the area, the Ministry of Revenue to investigate for illegal and unlicensed businesses, the Ministry of Housing to advise on the construction and financing of new housing, the Ministry of Transportation to investigate and advise on environmentally appropriate transportation needs, the Ministry of Health to report on special social needs, the Ministry of Tourism to study the creation of new and socially accepted tourist services."

COURT RULING

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, in support of the mother of Debra Pauline Williams Ellul, draw to the attention of the House the following:

"That the right to appeal the decision made in Debra Williams Ellul's murder acquitting Guy Ellul of all charges be granted based on the fact that the decision not to allow the appeal does not accurately reflect the public's abhorrence and unacceptability of the outcome of this trial."

I've affixed my signature to this petition.

1520

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have petitions with over 6,000 names affixed to them, a petition begun by the member for Burlington South, Mr Jackson, with I think a total of over 140,000 signatures.

"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 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."

I've affixed my signature.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Petitions, the member for Eglinton.

REAL ESTATE GAINS

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate this opportunity to read this petition. I think it's the first opportunity I've had since last Tuesday. This is a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have attached my signature to the petition.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here that's signed by 12 students in Waterloo and that was given to me by a former page, Joshua Patterson.

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is planning to amalgamate certain art-related courses at the year one secondary school level into one course in a proposed program called the Transition Years; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, including secondary school students of the aforementioned courses, feel that this decision is unacceptable on the ground that it eliminates the in-depth study of the affected courses; and

"Whereas we understand that the aforementioned decision was taken in recognition of the difficulties faced by some students during their transition from elementary to secondary school but affirm that this plan is the incorrect one; and

"Whereas we believe that this decision jeopardizes the value of all of the above programs to future students in the first year and later years of secondary school;

"We petition Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Education reconsider the aforementioned decision so that first-year secondary school students in Ontario may continue to enjoy the level of instruction that they receive in the affected art-related courses for many years to come."

I am pleased to affix my signature hereto.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I have a petition against the greater London annexation plot. It's signed by 54 people from the greater London area and is addressed to the Legislature of Ontario.

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

I have signed the petition.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a petition. It's addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario and all honourable members of Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Education is planning to amalgamate certain art-related courses at the year one secondary school level into one course in a proposed program called the Transition Years; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned residents of Ontario, including secondary school students of the aforementioned courses, feel that this decision is unacceptable on the grounds that it eliminates the in-depth study of the affected courses; and

"Whereas we understand that the aforementioned decision was taken in recognition of the difficulties faced by some students during their transition from elementary to secondary school but reaffirm that this plan is the incorrect one; and

"Whereas we believe that this decision jeopardizes the value of all of the above programs to future students in the first year and later years of secondary school;

"We petition Her Majesty's Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Ministry of Education reconsider the aforementioned decision so that first-year secondary school students in Ontario may continue to enjoy the level of instruction that they receive in the affected art-related courses for many years to come."

This is signed by several students from Waterloo, and I affixed my signature.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by many residents from my area. I'm certainly pleased to be able to get it on after many days of not being able to do so.

"Whereas it is against United Church of Canada policy to indulge in any type of gambling --

Interjection: Poor little boy.

Mr Murdoch: Some people may think this is funny, but this is important to many people in my riding.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Get it together.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe other people would like to read it for me.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Perhaps the member could simply read the petition.

Mr Murdoch: I understand that, Mr Speaker, but we like to let everybody have his chance.

"Gambling casinos bring crime to the community;

"Not everyone has self-control to limit their betting;

"Low-income people will suffer from unwise use of their resources;

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

"Be it resolved that the Toronto Conference United Church Women do strongly object to the Ontario government's proposed legislation to promote offtrack betting, sports lotteries and gambling casinos."

MEMBER'S MAILING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Several times in the past I've brought to the attention of the House situations where a householder by a member was used inappropriately, either that it contained misleading information or it was of a partisan nature and therefore should not have been paid for with public tax dollars.

I have here a communication sent throughout her riding by the Honourable Elaine Ziemba, the Minister for Citizenship. Attached to this communication was a survey which had return postage on it and asked two questions:

First, "I feel that the New Democratic government is doing a good job, creating jobs, maintaining services, controlling the deficit and other."

Second, "Given that this is the worst recession since the 1930s, I think Bob Rae and the New Democratic government are doing as good a job as can be expected. Agree. Disagree."

That is the total sum of the survey, and the only purpose for this has to be to get a list of NDP voters. I would ask you for a ruling that this is inappropriate, that it is partisan in nature and that public dollars are being wasted on this trash.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Eglinton, I don't know if she has completed the survey or not, but if she would be kind enough to send the material to me, indeed I will be pleased to take a look at it. If it is of a partisan nature, then of course it would be forwarded to the Board of Internal Economy for its appropriate look to determine what course of action is necessary.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's seventh report.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

The committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall;

Bill Pr39, An Act to revive the Dutch Canadian Alliance of Ontario, Inc;

Bill Pr47, An Act respecting Arnprior-Nepean Railway Company.

Your committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

1530

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SPRING GREEN CO-OPERATIVE ACT, 1992

Mr Marchese moved, on behalf of Ms Swarbrick, first reading of Bill Pr37, An Act to revive Spring Green Co-operative.

Motion agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Carleton. I'm sorry, my error. The member for Fort York had two bills to introduce.

SILVERBIRCH CO-OPERATIVE INC ACT, 1992

Mr Marchese moved, on behalf of Ms Swarbrick, first reading of Bill Pr38, An Act to revive Silverbirch Co-operative Inc.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a brief point of order, Mr Speaker: I do believe it's customary to rotate even though a member is introducing two bills. In other words, you normally have to wait until the rotation comes around to introduce your second bill. It's not a big point.

LYTTLE INVESTMENTS LIMITED ACT, 1992

Mr Sterling moved first reading of Bill Pr53, An Act to revive Lyttle Investments Limited.

Motion agreed to.

ARTS COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE CONSEIL DES ARTS

Mrs Haslam moved first reading of Bill 72, An Act to amend the Arts Council Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur le Conseil des arts.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Karen Haslam (Minister of Culture and Communications): The province of Ontario council for the arts, which is the Ontario Arts Council, is a schedule 3 agency of the province established under the Arts Council Act in 1963. The Ontario Arts Council supports and promotes the study and enjoyment and production of the arts in this province. The OAC serves as a vehicle for a majority of the province's funding to Ontario's professional arts community. The bill I am introducing today is designed to provide greater administrative efficiency for the council and to improve its ability to serve the artistic and cultural needs of the province.

WASTE MANAGEMENT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT LA GESTION DES DÉCHETS

Mr Cousens moved first reading of Bill 73, An Act to repeal the Waste Management Act, 1992, and to amend the Environmental Protection Act / Loi abrogeant la Loi de 1992 sur la gestion des déchets et modifiant la Loi sur la protection de l'environnement.

Motion agreed to.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This bill will be the rallying point for the people within York region, Durham and Peel and the greater Toronto area to fight the government on its Bill 143. It will be a number that people will look to and which we will try to bring into the House to see that Bill 143 is reversed. That's the intent of this bill, and this bill will go a long way to cleaning up the miserable deeds done by the New Democrats.

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

Motion agreed to.

TOWN OF MATTAWA AND TOWNSHIP OF MATTAWAN ACT (OTTO HOLDEN DAM BYPASS), 1992

Mr Eves moved first reading of Bill Pr50, An Act regarding the Town of Mattawa and the Township of Mattawan.

Motion agreed to.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mrs Witmer moved first reading of Bill 76, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les relations de travail.

Motion agreed to.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This bill will introduce secret ballot votes for certification and for ratification of collective agreements and strikes. I strongly believe that if we are to have fairness and equality, as the Minister of Labour has indicated he desires, all workers in this province should have the right to a free and democratic vote.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT LES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities / Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives aux municipalités.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This bill proposes a number of amendments to the municipal, consolidated regional, metropolitan, district municipality of Muskoka and the county of Oxford acts. The major items in the bill relate to the municipal borrowing and investment powers. I should emphasize that most of the amendments have been requested by municipalities and the investment community. A total of 18 specific amendments to the borrowing and investment powers of municipalities are proposed.

The amendments fall into five categories: capital approval process, short-term borrowing and interim financing, debt issuance, investments and housekeeping.

The existing approval process for capital undertakings and other long-term financial obligations will be streamlined. The approval of the Ontario Municipal Board would no longer be required provided the undertakings do not exceed the limits and conditions set by the province. It should be stressed that the projects which would exceed the limits would continue to require the approval of the board. The new process would come into effect at the beginning of 1993 to allow for a smooth transition from the existing system.

Existing short-term borrowing and interim financing restrictions will be clarified and simplified by changing the interim financing limit for capital projects to the total cost of the projects and changing the short-term borrowing limit for operating purposes from 70% of uncollected revenues to 50% of the total budgeted revenue from January 1 to September 30, and to 25% of total budgeted revenue from October 1 to December 31.

The power of municipalities to issue debt will be updated, including the power to issue debt in foreign currencies in addition to the US dollar and the British pound sterling. The foreign currencies and the municipalities that may issue such debentures will be specified in the regulations.

Municipalities will be permitted to protect themselves from the risks associated with borrowing in foreign currencies as a result of interest and foreign exchange fluctuations by allowing them to enter into interest and foreign exchange agreements and other agreements. The type of agreements and arrangements that municipalities will be able to enter into would also be specified in the regulations.

The investment powers of municipalities would also be updated by permitting participation in investment pools with other municipalities and by permitting the collective investment of general, reserve and capital funds, including the allocation of the investment income earned.

Finally, a number of administrative provisions will be brought up to date to allow municipalities to take advantage of technological innovations, including electronic record-keeping, electronic transfers of funds and the mechanical reproduction of signatures.

Two of the other changes would apply to all municipalities: the determination of municipal election campaign surplus and clear legislative authority for municipalities to implement and operate emergency response systems such as 911. In the first case, the calculation of surplus municipal campaign funds would be redefined to include additional election-related expenses such as auditing fees and revenues and informal collections of money. These items would have to be included in calculating the surplus, which must be placed in trust with the municipal clerk.

The remaining items are in response to requests for changes by municipalities and/or local boards, and are housekeeping or minor policy matters.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Questions and/or comments?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I understand these amendments are relatively minor, but I want to remind the parliamentary assistant that what we're seeing today is not the real McCoy, if I can use those words, for the simple reason that what's behind all those amendments is the disentanglement program, and you've already started this disentanglement.

Mr Parliamentary Assistant, I want to remind you that most of the amendments are acceptable, but we would like you to be much more open than you are today, introducing amendments before we get into the real disentanglement of services offered or being provided to municipalities.

I'll let the amendments speak for themselves. We might support the bill. For the time being, I want to listen to what you have to say, but I want to remind you that you have to be much more open with your disentanglement program and be up front, and who knows, we might support Bill 165.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I'm particularly interested in this bill and I'm pleased to see it's before the House to be debated and hopefully passed.

I think one of the most important aspects of this bill is in explanatory note 9. This is particularly important to the residents of all the counties in Ontario, and therefore most of the local municipalities, because it provides for the implementation of a 911 emergency telephone system. As we know, some of the municipalities in Ontario are fortunate enough to have such systems but there are very vast areas that do not have them, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the point that nothing is more important these days than for all citizens to be able to reach emergency services. Indeed it's an injustice and a wrong that so many of our people cannot. Many of the counties in Ontario are looking at such a system and this amendment will be particularly helpful and I'm pleased to see it there.

The other item I'd like to comment on just briefly is explanatory note 4, where counties are finally given the same powers as local municipalities have to issue debentures. There is a section of the Municipal Act that allows for counties to issue debentures, when requested, for and on behalf of local municipalities within the particular county. However, the counties have not had the authority to issue various types of debentures or have a choice of issuing, other than the simple serial debentures, since the time this authority was given to local municipalities in the 1950s.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Just to follow up with 911, I know there are areas in my riding that are having difficulties in receiving the 911. It's a lot to do with the cost of the system. I wonder, since this is questions, if the parliamentary assistant has any idea if there's going to be some funding for this system for people in rural Ontario who definitely need this, but because of the distance and the amount of area in rural Ontario, the money is the problem. Is there going to be any assistance, now that we're cleaning up the bills, to allow this to happen? Will you have any money to help us out on that?

That's one thing, and the other one I think I'll talk more about. It is a good idea that finally we're letting the upper tier, the counties, obtain financing, but I have some problems with that, because you call it debt funding but it sounds a lot like deficit funding to me, and of course I'm opposed to that. We'll talk a bit more about that when we continue the debate. Maybe the parliamentary assistant could answer me if there's going to be some funding put forward for our 911 systems.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I'd just like to make a few comments about the bill that is before us today, Bill 165, which is going to help a number of rural areas in dealing with the municipalities dealing with their debt issue.

As we find out, a lot of our infrastructure in rural Ontario is starting to deteriorate because of the lack of maintenance. It's important for our municipalities to try to come up with some ways to meet the needs of our citizens in rural Ontario.

Also, dealing with the powers of 911, I remember that a gentleman, at the age of 93 years young, has indicated the wish that 911 be implemented in Kent county. I think this is one part of a reality of making 911 that much closer to our Kent county and making sure that at the age of 93, he will see it become a reality during his lifetime.

I also know that during the debt issue around municipalities -- I have a number of major concerns in my municipality dealing with the infrastructure that has been deteriorating. I think it's very important that the municipalities understand their own communities. As we deal with water rates and that, there is the debt issue that's being put to them. But unfortunately the user fees are paying themselves off; it's not through municipal tax purposes. They need somewhere to make sure they can pay these debts off, because as we find out, as provincial government revenues and federal government revenues start to deteriorate, municipalities are having a harder time meeting the needs of their citizens.

I look forward to these amendments and I'm hoping the two oppositions -- I thank my colleague for the introduction of this and for bringing it before us. Hopefully it will be done before we recess this year to make sure that a lot of municipalities can start setting themselves to making sure that come their next budgets, they're fiscally responsible in making sure they achieve the goals of our constituents both here at Queen's Park and there in the municipalities.

1550

The Acting Speaker: In response, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Mills: I've listened with great interest to the concerns of the member for Ottawa East and also the member for Brant-Haldimand, both of whom I know to have been experienced municipal politicians in their past lives. I've also listened to the member for Grey's comments. All I can tell you this afternoon, particularly to the member for Grey, is that Bill 165 is not about funding for 911.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Grandmaître: As I pointed out -- and I think the member for Durham East has recognized what I've meant by it -- this is the start of disentanglement; this is what it's all about. I can see that some of the amendments have been worked on and approved and accepted by AMO. It all started under our government and now, some two and a half years after this program was started, amendments are being introduced.

If you look at the first amendment, computerization of municipal debentures, currently municipalities are required to manually record their outstanding debentures in a ledger and now they'll be able to do them by computer. It's a very simple amendment.

On the second amendment, the increased debenture authority for counties, as my colleague the member for Brant-Haldimand pointed out, now a county is defined or recognized as a municipality and it can now deal with debentures, whereas it wasn't possible before this amendment.

The third amendment, the longer amortization period for capital projects changes from 20 to 30 years; now, if I'm not mistaken, municipalities will be able to borrow up to 40 years. This is where I have some kind of hangup, Mr Speaker, for the simple reason that here we are and it means the provincial government will be downloading more services and more responsibilities on municipalities. I can give you examples: for roads and even for bridges. Naturally when you debenture for a bridge, you're looking at a 50-year infrastructure.

Municipalities at the present time, with a maximum 20- or 30-year debenture, couldn't do this type of debenture, but now with the disentanglement or the dumping of more responsibilities or more services on municipalities, they will have to debenture for a longer period.

I'm concerned about the longer period for most of our municipalities. I know transfer payments to our municipalities have been very meagre for the last three years, and I can see that in the future these transfer payments will remain very, very limited. That means municipalities will have to borrow more money, and more interest is being paid to service that debenture. It means a larger tax bill and this is what really concerns me.

I also realize that AMO, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, is in favour of such extension or such an amendment, but I'm still concerned that down the road, five, six or 10 years from now, municipalities will be crying foul. I just want to remind AMO that it should maybe be more serious when it looks at disentanglement and the amendments being brought under Bill 165.

Allowing for debentures to mature sooner than five years I think is very reasonable. It speaks for itself. Greater flexibility in extending the term of existing debentures I think speaks for itself. This is understandable. Allowing for prescribed foreign currency debentures in other currencies beside the Canadian dollar, US dollar and British pound: It seems that AMO and the rest of our municipalities that have asked for this kind of amendment are willing and ready to go to Japan and look for yens for debentures.

Again I must emphasize the fact that I like this bill, but at the present time I'm reminded of disentanglement. I think we should be looking at disentanglement before this bill, but it's introduced and I'm not going to adjourn this House and have the bells ring for the next couple of days. I realize that for some municipalities it is very important.

The eighth amendment, establishing a borrowing limit for municipalities: I suppose municipalities will be establishing a line of credit and at the same time it will encourage municipalities to borrow more money. This concerns me for a number of reasons because of what I see happening in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the restructuring of our regional governments right across this province and the attitude of the present minister. I'll give you a perfect example in the greater London area. An arbitrator -- not the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act but an arbitrator -- rectified the situation and this concerns me.

In other words, what the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the minister is saying and doing is: "I'll send in an arbitrator. Never mind the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act; never mind. If you can't agree, well, this arbitrator, this hatchet man will do the job for me." I think the minister or the ministry should be honest enough to say: "Look, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is not working. Let's amend it." But this is not what's being done.

It's not only happening in the London area. I can see the very same process being used in Ottawa-Carleton. At the present time very few people in Ottawa-Carleton have requested the minister or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to look at one-tier government. But arbitrarily again the minister is imposing his will and saying, "We will look at one-tier government."

I've spoken to every mayor in the Ottawa-Carleton area and to most politicians in Ottawa-Carleton, and I'll be very honest with you: It's a waste of money. I'm told the study will cost $175,000 to have the provincial government look at a one-tier system. Even the commissioner is saying, "Hey, it won't work." There's still time for the minister to prevent this kind of waste in Ottawa-Carleton, but the minister is determined to go ahead.

I'm concerned about the future and the outcome of our local government in Ontario. I think the minister has a responsibility in this House and in every municipality, village and county he visits to sell local government. Local government, Mr Speaker, I don't have to tell you, is the government closest to the hearts of municipal taxpayers. It's a perfect avenue for them to vent their frustration, to talk about potholes and garbage; you name it. It's an avenue that's needed.

1600

What the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and this present minister are doing, I think, is destroying the local option or local government. If we destroy local government we prevent people, municipal taxpayers, from having a say in the final decision-making process of this House. If we carry on with the kind of policies and legislation that've been introduced, we won't need a local government week or a government pride week, whatever you want to call it, because most of our municipalities will disappear, be annexed or amalgamated and form a larger government. There is a tendency in the ministry at present to think that bigger is better, but at the same time it costs much more money.

We will support Bill 165 reluctantly. I want to remind the parliamentary assistant that in five years from now municipalities and AMO agreeing with this Bill 165 will be crying and coming back to the ministry wanting more money. You might as well warn your Treasurer to get ready, because transfer payments of 1% will not be enough.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Since there are no questions or comments, further debate. The honourable member for Grey.

Mr Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): About to be Grey-Owen Sound.

Mr Murdoch: Right. The member for Bruce realizes the new name change, if we can get it brought back to the assembly when the House leaders meet. I know the member for Bruce is the House leader, so I'm sure he'll work to bring that bill back, won't he?

I really have no problem with most of this bill. A lot of it is just cleaning up issues that a lot of municipalities would like to have looked after. But there is one problem; there is one part of the bill I have some problem with. It seems to be that since this new government has taken over, deficit funding has become a phrase they use quite a bit. I'm afraid that if this bill is passed in its present form we may get into this type of funding with our municipalities. Now it's called debt funding, but I don't see a lot of difference between deficit funding and debt funding.

When I met with the ministry staff -- I am pleased they have met with me a couple of times and certainly they have been helpful in understanding this bill because of all the different things involved in it -- I mentioned that maybe they could pull out the part of the bill that allows the municipalities to debt-fund without going through the OMB.

Originally, when we talked about this bill some time ago, I really didn't have a lot of concern with it, other than the OMB. I have a lot of concern with the OMB and now, with the OMB under Municipal Affairs, I have even more concern about it. We need some checks and balances, I think, because our municipalities have had an excellent record. Because of the rules, they don't end up in debt. A lot of times, if they want to borrow more than they can absorb in their term, they have been allowed to do so but with scrutiny from the OMB. I'm afraid, if we get into this, we're going to have problems and some of our municipalities may be into problems.

We've seen this government now in the past couple of years cut back on moneys to our municipalities, and this is a big concern. Now if we're going to let the municipalities borrow, I can see this government today not even allowing more money to flow to our municipalities. They could say to the municipalities: "Oh, well, you have borrowing power now. You don't have to go to the OMB and you can go in debt." Then they'll be in as big a mess as the province and our federal government are. We certainly don't want that happening to our municipalities because they've kept their record clear.

I would certainly have liked to have seen this one area of the bill taken out. If it had been withdrawn from the bill, then I could have supported it, because the rest of the items in the bill, as my friend Ben from Ottawa mentioned, are all okay. But this one part in it doesn't allow me to vote for this bill. I can't see this. If we're going to start letting the municipalities borrow, then I think we're in real trouble.

The government will say AMO agrees. I don't know whether AMO does agree. As I said, this bill was brought forward some time ago, and I've gone out on the road and asked the counties, the smaller places, the smaller areas, and they don't really want this. They have the pressure put on them.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): They don't have to use it.

Mr Murdoch: The Minister of Housing says, "They don't have to use it." This is true. But when the pressure comes on them from the people of the riding, they come and say: "You can get this money now. You can go out and borrow it. The government has allowed you to go out and borrow this money now. You can do this."

Mr Elston: Or the government says: "We don't have the money. You can get it."

Mr Murdoch: That's right. My friend the member for Bruce says it's like we just mentioned. "We don't have the money any more," the province will say, "so now we've allowed you to borrow. You can be as fiscally poor as we are." This is just a start.

Again as my friend Ben mentioned, disentanglement is all coming in here and we have to be very careful. A lot of these other rules could have been implemented, and I'm sure they will be. You have the power over there to pass this bill, and I'm sure you will. But in its present form I cannot support it, and I don't think my colleagues can just because of this deficit funding. You call it debt funding, but I don't see the difference unfortunately. I must say again, though, your staff tried to point that out to me, but maybe I just don't understand the reasoning behind the two words.

I know the way the bill right now sits it requires the municipalities to obtain project-by-project approval. Maybe some of that needs streamlining. We'll take the Kitchener Rangers, the junior A hockey team. We also have the Owen Sound Platers, a junior A hockey team in our area. It was pointed out to me that if they wanted to give a lease to one of these junior A hockey teams for more than the term of the office for the municipal politicians, they would have to go through the OMB. It's a lengthy process. Sometimes these junior A hockey teams want to make sure they're going to be able to have a place for six years or nine years, and it's a process that maybe could be streamlined -- things like that. But that could have been handled in a bill by itself.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That's a revenue.

Mr Murdoch: It's in the same bill, though. It could have been handled. It's not a revenue in some cases.

Some municipalities make a long-term commitment to these junior A teams to allow them to use their arenas and places like that. I think we have a new triple A ball team coming into Ottawa, and it could be the same thing. In those kinds of cases it makes sense to streamline it, but it should have come through as a separate bill. Again it forces me to vote against a bill and most of the bill I agree with. I think it's good of the government to bring in things like this and to fix up some of the problems the municipalities had.

To me this bill also leans towards the larger municipalities, the municipalities of maybe Toronto, Windsor, some of the bigger places that seem to want a deficit fund. They want to get in the game with the province and the feds. I think this is the reason AMO is agreeing with this bill. I'm afraid AMO is being taken over by the large urban centres. This is a dangerous thing to happen to AMO. I don't think they're listening to the rural municipalities. If they were, this wouldn't be hailed as such a great thing. The rest of the things, okay, fine, but this deficit funding, or debt funding as it's called, is really a dangerous thing to get into.

I just want to put back in the record that we could have voted for most of this bill, but with this part in it we will not be able to support it over here, and that's unfortunate. I know the government of the day will pass it and we'll see what happens. I just want to put it in the record. I want to warn you that this is only a start.

The next time one of the municipalities comes to the government and says, "Look, we can't afford to build this. Can you help us out?" it's going to get back the answer: "Look, we don't have any money either, but now you can deficit-fund it the same as we can, so you go out and borrow the money. You have better borrowing powers than we do." They'll probably have a triple A rating in the municipalities, where you're down to the double A, I believe -- minus, something like that.

1610

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Natural Resources and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): The best in Canada still.

Mr Murdoch: Maybe the best in Canada, but it's going down. So you want to put this back on to the municipalities, and this is really a problem. This is the main reason, Mr Speaker, that I have a problem with this bill. It would be nice to see the rest of the things cleared up, and I'm really disappointed that they didn't decide to bring it in in two bills.

Rather than prolong a debate, I will sit down. We have some more speakers to speak on this and we'll listen to see what they have to say. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, just very, very briefly, because I don't want to go on too long, I think the member for Grey has hit upon the issue which is really the most difficult for politicians to deal with. The issue is, how far is the provincial government, which is really the governing body for municipalities, in the end going to take the pressure on forcing local municipalities to borrow to their entire limit to fund local municipal projects before the province kicks in its funding arrangements?

Everybody here who is a member has rightfully noted that there are certain percentages of contribution from the Ministry of the Environment. We know there is no money in most of their programs. There are certain percentages of contributions for programs to municipalities, to allow the disabled to access special loan programs through municipalities which are not being funded. All those issues and others in terms of highways, bridge work and whatever else is now going to fall prey to this suggestion that the local municipalities borrow to their very limit against their tax base before the province kicks in capital funding are a concern of all of us.

I'm not sure how much more time I have. For me, Mr Speaker, there is one issue around that item which I'm not as concerned about: the issue of whether or not municipal politicians will well understand their duty to their ratepayers, to the people who elected them. The issue of whether they are sophisticated enough to decide whether they are in a position to borrow money in trust in their municipality is not an issue for me. In most cases this has been raised as an issue: Are these people able to do the business of the place? That is not a concern for me. My view is that the local ratepayers, the local electors, will make sure a justification is arrived at before a council will, willy-nilly, go out and borrow beyond its means.

My big concern, and it has nothing to do with current administration or otherwise, is that a lot of provincially and federally funded programs in capital works will disappear on the basis that this power is given and that there is a forced borrowing required before people can have access to provincial and federal programming. If we heard from the parliamentary assistant that this was not to occur I might be somewhat happier at this particular juncture in the debate, but I sense it will become the way of the world in terms of funding a lot of capital projects.

In my part of the country -- I shouldn't speak for yours, Mr Speaker, but in Victoria-Haliburton too -- I dare say the thinness of our assessment base is such that there are tremendous pressures put on the resources to fund programs, let alone more capital funding requests going directly to the municipalities. I'm concerned about it. I raise it not only to say we won't support this issue; it is, in my view, the really nasty part of the business that lies unspoken in the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and/or questions? The honourable member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I would like to make a couple of comments in my two minutes, and I'd like to talk about the borrowing amendments of the bill. They will, of course, reduce the borrowing cost by allowing municipalities to use different terms, to use different borrowing instruments and different currencies. The larger municipalities have requested these changes, and I think that by doing this we will save all Ontarians quite a bit of money.

I'd like to close with a comment about downloading. The government, of course, is very aware of downloading. It's a fact that we have not downloaded on the municipalities. We have an example of that with court security. We realize what happened there.

Maybe AMO has recognized that it can trust this government and that we are not downloading. Maybe it's because they are now prepared to operate in good faith with the government and negotiate roles and further responsibilities with us.

With that, I would just conclude by saying that it's an entirely different set of circumstances than it was in 1986-87 as we deal with municipalities.

The Acting Speaker: Further comments and/or questions? If there are none, then the honourable member for Grey has two minutes to respond.

Mr Murdoch: I find it very odd that the parliamentary assistant could say that this government did not download on the municipalities. I believe there was this big announcement that everybody only got 1%, but I didn't see any announcement that any of the programs they have to initiate were lifted. So if you don't call that downloading, I think there's something wrong with the speaker over there. He's obviously fabricating something in his mind so that he can get through the day and get this bill passed. I guess that's what he's up to.

The whole thing relates to what is going to happen to municipalities. As I said, we're going to have the chance now for municipalities to start deficit funding. This is just the opening up of it. We can't allow that. I guess the government of the day wants to do that because it'll be able to download even more on the municipalities when it can tell them, "You can borrow the money better than we can."

This is the start, and I'm very afraid of the kind of stuff that's happening. I know some of the bigger municipalities would like to do that, but there still was a check and balance with them having to go to the Ontario Municipal Board. I think we have to have something in there if they're going to extend their debt beyond their term. We're getting ourselves into a position that we'll never be able to get out of. It's going to be bad enough for the province and the federal government to get out of deficit funding. We don't need our municipalities doing this.

1620

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to take a very few moments this afternoon to make some comments with respect to Bill 165. I appreciate what the parliamentary assistant has said. I'm struck by the debate here this afternoon by people who know municipal matters better than I.

I must say, looking at the provisions of the legislation, I'm struck by the fact that in a number of key areas there is a clear relaxation of borrowing powers afforded to local governments, both at the ground tier and at the upper tier. One looks at legislation like this and asks oneself the questions, "Why?" and "What else is occurring in municipal-provincial relationships to which some of this might attach?" It has been observed by just about every speaker, I think, that we are on the verge of a significant provincial government initiative in respect of disentanglement.

I love that word, because of course it has the felicitous appeal of all bureaucratese. To the informed insider, it can mean a lot of things, and most of all it tells the outside person that the inside person is very au courant with the debate.

But I have the feeling, as someone who represents a county of some 36 municipalities, that the rubber is about to hit the road on disentanglement and that Bill 165 is part of the rubber.

I'm not going to get into a debate this afternoon about downloading. I suppose in a sense we've all done it. I look at this particular bill and I see some issues that are fundamental to intergovernmental relationships both in the province and outside of the province, the relationships between municipalities and the centre and the relationship between provinces and the Dominion government.

Someone said -- I forget who it was, perhaps my friend the member for Bruce -- that if one is a well-to-do municipality one looks at Bill 165 and one is very pleased, because there is, as we all know, a very substantial variability in local wealth across the province and across the nation. One of the enduring memories I will have as Minister of Education is just how endlessly bedevilling that reality was to good public policy in the province. I don't think we've really begun to address some of the problems and we probably never will, because the politics are just so inherently unattractive and, more important, people just won't or don't understand. I live within the shadow of the national capital region. I rest my case with that example and I need none other.

I want to say to the parliamentary assistant that I look at this and I say to myself, "What is it preparing the province for?" I think in part it is preparing the province for the 1993 launch of the first stage of disentanglement. I want to say, for everyone in this assembly, that 1993, if that target is to be kept, is going to be a very, very memorable year for some of us. I'm now beginning to hear from a number of my municipal governments in Renfrew county. They're beginning to see; the mist is just beginning to lift. There is now something of an outline of what is to come, and if you think the debates around this place, those horrible Grit days in 1989 when that rotten Nixon had the nerve to flat-line unconditional grants, excited some interest, you ain't seen nothing yet. When the mist rises even further and people begin to understand why it is some of the enabling provisions of Bill 165 were required, I tell you, we're going to remember the day June 23, 1992.

Again, on a process level, this is my favourite kind of legislation, and I've done it, so I know when it's being done to me. You get this kind of omnibus bill, tidying up the loose ends. In the old Department of Education this is what they used to call the doily legislation, you know, just tidying up the business, dusting off some of the corners.

The Legislature is going to pass this bill today or tomorrow, and most of the Legislature won't have a clue what it has passed, but a very small group of people who need to know will know what has been done and what is now enabled to and for municipalities which was not there before. I ask and my friend the member for Grey and others ask -- I know the member from Etobicoke is going to speak -- the question, "Why would it be necessary for counties, for example, to have the same powers with respect to borrowing that lower-tier municipalities within the region might have?"

Mr Stockwell: Bridges and roads.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Etobicoke West says "bridges and roads," and he's absolutely right; at this point, you see, just a theoretical possibility, but my learned friends underneath the press gallery from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs may know more than any of us here. I respect them. They are very capable people.

In Haliburton and elsewhere, about eight months from now, I can assure you, at a time when the Legislature's not sitting, it won't make any difference because -- get ready -- 1993 is a year when disentanglement is going to cease being a debate among insiders about a variety of theological possibilities. It is going to become a very fixed discussion around what one is going to get municipally for the province relieving the townships of Brougham and Wilberforce, in my county, of the burdens of social welfare assistance.

But for that trade, I suspect the townships and the county in my area of Renfrew are going to be given the honour and privilege of taking over some of the hard services like roads and bridges. I can assure my honourable friends that to do that in a county like Renfrew, the county is going to need some borrowing powers it does not now have.

Mr Elston: Water and sewers.

Mr Conway: My friend the member for Bruce says, as well, "water and sewers." I just want to make the point that if anyone here thinks we are passing today or tomorrow a neutral bit of tidying up with Bill 165, she or he is making a very grave mistake. In this happy little package of amendments is a Trojan Horse that is going to contain a lot of the guts that will enable disentanglement to take effect within a year. If anyone here thinks we are dealing with anything else then I'm telling you, to quote the late, great Senator Forsey, that person is dreaming in Technicolor.

As we engage this week about the need for rule changes and making this place more relevant, Bill 165 at a certain level just points magnificently to the utter irrelevance of this place, because we are going to pass legislation the import of which most of us do not comprehend.

Speaking for most governments -- and I don't mean this as a criticism of the current government -- it is going to be the hope and expectation of any government that no Legislature will ever awaken to what is contained in this kind of legislation, because the point, the tactic, is to get the enabling provisions passed before a specific debate begins. At the point of the specific debate being engaged, people in Haliburton, Renfrew and Kent are going to say, "Well, let's talk about the principle that allows this to happen." Some honourable member is going to stand up and say -- probably the Minister of Municipal Affairs -- "Oh, but didn't you understand that we passed that bill, the enabling legislation, on June 23, 1992?"

Mr Stockwell: Bill 143 all over again.

Mr Conway: I wasn't as close to 143 as others, but I just want to say again that we have in rural Ontario right now a raging debate launched by the Ministry of Natural Resources over the innocuous paper around the Trees Act. Again, I just say to my friends who keep saying, "Well, there's nothing to it," just read the paper. We haven't seen the legislation, but if one were an ordinary citizen in Gooderham, Haliburton county, and read it -- and I quite frankly share the objectives this government and, I suspect, other governments have had about better management of trees on private property. But I have to tell you: The paper that has been dropped by the department of lands and forests, as we like to say in Renfrew, has all kinds of nice little expectations that I expect are going to be translated into statute.

From Thunder Bay to Toronto harbour -- I shouldn't use that example, it's probably not a big issue in Toronto -- but in most of rural Ontario, people are ticked right off with what they think is the Trojan Horse in that particular paper.

1630

I want to say to my friend from Orono that this province will very shortly be engaged in a major debate about what Ms Boyd and others have been working at and about very diligently over the last number of months. I know it's not easy; it wouldn't be easy for any government. I just simply want to observe, as we deal with second reading of Bill 165, that in my view this is legislation that will enable in significant measure the first and subsequent stages of disentanglement to occur. We now provide local governments with a substantially increased borrowing power and other related powers.

I don't think we are doing it just because some of the better-off municipalities have asked for it. There is another agenda here. In a more ideal world we would have a more honest debate about how this legislation is going to tie into what I suspect has now been decided in principle at the cabinet table. It would have to be. I saw the other day in Ottawa where the Minister of Community and Social Services, in I think quite an able presentation, indicated that from her point of view she expects January 1, 1993, to be the date at which the province assumes full responsibility for social assistance.

Mr Elston: Remember when we used to talk about sharing the wealth? This is sharing the debt. This is a sharing government.

Mr Conway: I'm not prepared to get into that, because quite frankly I've dealt with some local governments that have complained bitterly about what the province has done to them over the years. I think the complaints in some respects were not as substantial as people would have you believe.

But I'm going to tell you that if we start, as the government has indicated, with the absorption of the social welfare cost by the province, that is going to be one of the most significant changes in public policy and financial arrangements this province will have seen in decades. It is going to be accompanied by very significant collateral action. That collateral action is going to involve and has to involve hard services like roads and bridges, just to name two.

In the district of Muskoka or in the county of Renfrew, I am going to tell you it's going to capture people's attention in a real and immediate way. I simply want to say again that my rural municipalities are starting to see the outline of the hills behind the mist and they are getting very concerned. Disentanglement is a tradeoff. If anybody thinks you can find a felicitous phrase to soften some of the attendant pain that adjustment is going to invite, and I sometimes think there are people around the provincial government and AMO who think you can come up with some nice jargon and somehow the pain is going to go away -- well, I'm one of the 130 people who's going to get the pain.

You see, this is again an old-fashioned notion I have. I'm just one of these dumb clowns who, as members, think they have some responsibilities for decisions taken here in their names. But at the end of the day the electors of Renfrew are going to say: "Conway, we pay you to go to Queen's Park. Aren't these decisions in which you had a part?" I think that's not a bad attitude. I don't expect to hide behind Howard Moscoe or Ben Grandmaître or anyone else, because I know what's coming in my county. I know exactly what's coming.

As I say, my experience as Minister of Education dealing with the equalization formulas we have in that department is that they are not as sensitive and satisfactory as I'd like them to be, because some communities have infinitely more local wealth than others and, if allowed to borrow on the basis of that local wealth, they could offer a range of programs that people in Paincourt, Kent county, could only dream about.

Mr Hope: They're waiting for this stuff.

Mr Conway: My friend says, "They're waiting for this stuff," and maybe they are. I'm not going to stand here as some kind of caterwauling oppositionist in saying it's all bad and it's all wrong. The reality is that we have some very tough, painful decisions to make, and I expect just about everybody to be angry before this is over.

I say again that this, in my view, is the first legislative stage to allow the disentanglement process to begin, and people in Renfrew county should know that this is the bill that's going to allow the provincial government to say in a few months' time, "We've taken the 20% away from the municipalities for purposes of paying for social assistance, but for that we are now transferring to you the full responsibility, or a much greater level of responsibility, for things like roads and bridges," some of which roads and bridges have long been part of the provincial system. When they find that out in Paincourt or in Orono or in Walkerton or in Mount St Patrick, Broome township, they are going to be very interested and they're going to be able to look at specific provisions.

I've said enough. I say it again: Anyone who thinks this is just a happy, incidental bit of legislative neutrality doesn't understand what is contained in Bill 165, and I was a bit surprised, quite frankly, that my honourable friend, the always helpful parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, didn't perhaps take the opportunity today to at least touch the controversial hem of the main question that is involved with Bill 165.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? The honourable member for Grey.

Mr Murdoch: It's our turn. I just want to point out that the remarks from the honourable member for Renfrew North again point out that if this bill had been split, we could have had a good debate on the borrowing and the debt part of it, but you wanted to stick it in together with all these other things that are just cleaning up, and it puts us in like a blackmail position. You don't help out these other municipalities that need a few things that cleared up some areas the Municipal Act didn't allow them to do, which just made common sense that it would have been cleared up; you added this little one hitch to this bill just so you can push it through too.

The whole thing is, he's right on. It's the start of disentanglement, it's the start of municipalities being able to go into debt -- it's called debt funding or deficit funding -- and it's just a sad day that the people on the other side would not have split this bill. I think that's been unfair to both the opposition parties and probably to some of your members. You have a lot of rural members in there.

The member for Huron just sat down. We were just talking about this. Some of his rural municipalities are going to be talking to him about this and saying, "You know, this puts pressure on us from the ratepayers now to come in and say, 'Hey, you can borrow this money; you can go ahead.'" Before, they had a cushion. They had someone, another place, a check and balance, that could have helped them out. But now you're just going to put them in the same mess the province is in and the federal government's in.

It's really unfortunate, and as you could see, most of his debate was on this one issue. There are no other issues in the bill. It's just one major issue, and it's really unfortunate that you couldn't have split the bill and allowed us to debate it.

1640

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I listened with great interest to the member for Renfrew North. It's interesting that he brought in the disentanglement process, because in the last month or so I have had a couple of views from different lower-tier municipalities in my own riding, one starting to express some concerns and another one saying it is very supportive and wants it to go forward.

It is interesting though how some views have changed. Through AMO, many other municipalities have been looking to see the disentanglement process continue and go through. In the long run that would give them more control over what would be going on in their own area and they would also be able to control some of the rates at which taxation may occur at a local level -- more local control. It will be interesting to see how the debate goes forward, but I do think many people want to have more local control in terms of what types of decisions will be made. We'll see how it all comes out in the long run.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): If I could finish the debate that my colleague --

The Acting Speaker: No, I am afraid not.

Questions and/or comments? The honourable member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: I think the other issue which hasn't been touched upon here by the member for Renfrew North is that in a way the movement of this bill to provide for borrowing by local municipalities doesn't really indicate that the provincial government, let alone the federal government, has recognized the fact that we as a society cannot afford to buy everything for everybody. All we are doing by putting this piece of legislation into play, as I said before, is sharing the debt instead of sharing the wealth.

My concern is that there will be a continuing or lingering sense that one level of government, either federal, provincial or now local, will be able to borrow enough money to give to whoever needs it some prize for their efforts. We are now at a stage, in my view, of having to sort out in this nation not only our constitutional priorities but the priorities for funding programs and the very essential services we must have if we are to continue to be competitive in any part of this international world of ours.

What this particular piece of legislation doesn't face or confront is the fact that we cannot have everything and give everything to everybody by borrowing against our current assets and in fact our future assets for our convenience.

Mr Sutherland: No kidding.

Mr Elston: The member for Oxford is yipping "No kidding."

This doesn't reflect a sense that we have to come to grips with those priorities. It effectively allows the provincial government and the federal government to say to municipalities: "You want it; you borrow. You pledge your current assets and your future assets to do whatever." In the end, that is going to throw an awful lot of us into some very difficult times.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I welcome this opportunity to say a few words relative to this bill. As a representative of a riding made up of a number of small municipalities and county governments, I can tell you this should not be referred to as disentanglement. This should be referred to as the shifting of responsibilities from this level of government to the lower levels of government, which I refer to in my riding as county and municipal.

When you look around -- and I'm sure you've done this -- cities like Toronto and Ottawa and even towns in my riding such as the six major towns outside of the other 21 municipalities have done a very good job, in my opinion, at managing their financial affairs. But when you look at the provincial government and the federal government, they're bankrupt.

I can see where this is leading, with this shifting of responsibilities. They say that before we shift the responsibilities we must give them room to borrow. We must give them room to get into the same mess that we're in, because that's really what will happen. You can say that's not necessarily going to happen, but we have to face reality. If we're going to take on roads, bridges and the general responsibilities that have been shared on a provincial basis, we are going to have to borrow money, we are going to be in debt and we are going to have, once again, a great inequality among small municipalities.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Renfrew North has two minutes for a response.

Mr Conway: I want to thank my friends for their various and sundry observations. Let me just conclude by asking you to think about my county, Renfrew county: some 85,000 people living over some 3,000 square miles in some 35 or 36 municipalities, many of those municipalities very rural with large territories where things like roads and bridges are everywhere, where there is a very fragile local tax base.

I think Chris Stockwell made the point: This is not so much offloading as trading, that's what we have to understand it as being --

Mr Jordan: Shifting.

Mr Conway: It may be shifting, but I think it's more fairly presented as trading. I just think this bill allows us an opportunity today to start to think as a Legislature, because we're the ones who are going to be responsible for passing this bill and all of the policy that attaches to it. People had better understand what this is all about. It is a significant debate, and I think it's going to be very, very lively.

If I can leave any impression here today, it is simply this: A growing number of the rural municipalities in my county are now expressing more and more concern about what they think are going to be the very real and significant impacts on local taxes as a result of disentanglement. The idea that we are going to, in this legislation, provide a substantially enhanced borrowing power to municipalities, both at the regional and local level, is not going to alter the fact that Ontario, like the Dominion itself, is a jurisdiction of very substantially differing local economic bases.

My friends, it's going to be one hell of an interesting debate before it's all over. We will be back to some of the discussions of this legislation in the not-too-distant future.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: This is very interesting. It's typical of some debates that I've seen here for the last couple of years. The OMERS debate was rather interesting -- teachers' pension funds and so on. I would submit to this House that a lot of these debates aren't measured very highly on the importance scale. I don't believe they are. You can tell by the lacklustre approach and the lack of interest offered up by all sides of the House. I certainly don't condemn one party on this.

These are probably the most fundamentally important debates that we enter into -- fundamentally important because what these kinds of decisions affect are not just decisions of the day that the people of Ontario must live with; these are decisions that Ontarians will live with for decades.

I imagine that the first day deficit financing -- or debt -- was debated in this House it was probably unheralded and was one of those things that everyone else was doing, so a government adopted it, much like income tax was a temporary measure. Of course we all know how temporary income tax became.

I will say categorically that I have been personally responsible, I suppose to some degree, for holding up the passage of this particular piece of legislation, and I admit it full well. I think it's rather unfortunate that the government should lump such an important piece of legislation in with what is considered to be housekeeping.

I read in explanatory note 15 that, "The amendments to the Municipal Elections Act modify the definitions of 'contributions' and 'campaign expenses' for the purposes of calculating the surplus which must be paid over to the clerk," and that would happen in Muskoka, I believe. Okay, I can understand that. That's housekeeping.

I also read, "The District Municipality of Muskoka Act is amended to provide that the chair shall be elected at the first or inaugural meeting of the district council, consistent with other regional legislation." That's housekeeping.

1650

To push forward legislation which extends the amount of money that can be debentured to municipalities is not housekeeping. My friends opposite, to push forward debenturing dates from some 25 years to 40 years, thereby increasing the capacity for debt of local municipalities -- I would submit to you, Mr Speaker -- is not housekeeping. That's a very definitive action taken by this government and, I would submit again, part of a broader, long-range plan.

This is something I would like to see debated in the local town halls across this province. I wish the member for Chatham-Kent were here. He's heralding this as frontier thinking, as the new way to go. Debt is a very precious commodity and debt should never be abused by any level of government. Debt can be as easily taken back as it can be given.

I think both federal and provincial governments in this country have abused their power to borrow, and abused it in the most nonsensical, unacceptable way as to hold for ransom future generations. I believe that in my heart of hearts. I don't have any debate about that. Debt has been abused by government in this country like nothing else has been abused.

Interjection: Ontario Hydro.

Mr Stockwell: In Ontario Hydro it has been abused as well. I will say that on the record.

Any recommendation brought forward by any level of government, be it federal, be it provincial or be it municipal, to expand the powers of any government to acquire more, greater and longer debt, I am going to take a very long, hard look at.

What this legislation does is, in my opinion, very coy, very premature. It's allowing to pre-empt a debate that I believe is long overdue, and that debate is disentanglement. You hear that word quite often around this province. I often call it a weasel word. It's a weasel word because it doesn't really deal with the issue. The issue is trading responsibilities, and the trade comes from the local governments -- municipal, regional and elected councils -- and provincial governments. Disentanglement to me is a bit of a weasel word. It's something some bureaucrat came up with in the backroom that really your rank-and-file voters don't understand. If they did understand, they may well have a very different view of the word and the approach.

Let me explain why this is taking place. Why is it that the OMB can't possibly hear the number of cases it needs to hear on debenturing? Why can't the OMB continue to carry out the function that, I submit, it was originally established to do? It wasn't meant to be hearing about Sunday shopping laws or Sunday shopping appeals. The OMB wasn't, I submit, put in place to hear about small garage additions on streets in cities right around the province. It wasn't to deal with the number of backlog cases it now deals with.

What does this government think we should do about clearing up the backlog at the OMB? Their suggestion is, "Don't hear any more cases about municipal governments' capacity to borrow," maybe the most fundamental reason why the OMB was put in place. The argument from across the floor will come: "But municipalities have the capacity and the understanding and the knowledge and the expertise to deficit-finance, to buy debt. They don't need the OMB for approval." I say to them, they've not checked the record lately.

On a number of occasions in the past the OMB has in fact turned down requests to debenture and to acquire debt from local municipalities for any number of reasons. The most obvious case that springs to mind is within driving distance of this Legislature itself. I'm certain most members in this House would -- walking distance; driving distance. Most people in this House, I think, would have attended a ball game or a function of some kind at the SkyDome. I'm quite certain most have.

Do you realize, Mr Speaker, that when the money granted by the Metro council went to the OMB to be debentured, the OMB turned that down? That decision wasn't allowed and Metro wasn't allowed to debenture that grant. They carried on what I considered to be a very important and responsible job. That was $30 million; $30 million they would not let Metro grant as a debenture. Their decision was: It's a grant, not a debenture. You can't debenture a grant. Thirty million dollars is more, I would suggest, than lots of municipalities in this province have for entire operating budgets.

Mr Speaker, you're not going to get a lot of flowery speeches today on this piece of legislation. You probably won't even get a lot of interest from the press gallery. You won't get any interest from the local governments. You can't even keep the attention of the members opposite, with the exception of a few, because they don't believe it's significant. In my opinion, it's one of the most significant pieces of legislation they're bringing forward that will affect local government.

Let's talk about debt. Let's talk about the capacity to borrow and let's talk about how well politicians have handled that job in the past. You have to look no further than across the floor to find a government that is totally and completely beholden to borrowing. This government couldn't function if it couldn't borrow. This government couldn't meet its payroll if it couldn't borrow. This government couldn't open the front doors of this building if it couldn't borrow. This government couldn't pay our salaries or the salaries of the employees across this province if it didn't borrow. This government is totally beholden to borrowed money. The federal government, I'm sorry to say, is worse.

So now we have before us on our plate today a piece of legislation that will allow municipal governments to get into the same situation. I know full well the last cycle of municipal budgets that took place in Metropolitan Toronto was a sorry state. I only speak to Metropolitan Toronto council itself. They passed on a 15 point something per cent increase to the taxpayers in Metro Toronto. That's a really astounding number, a 15% increase in local government taxes, probably due to the 1% the provincial government passed on.

If this government at the municipal level had been allowed to borrow money to decrease the increase it was passing on to the taxpayers to save its hide, do you think it would have? Darn right it would have. Can you count the number of local municipal governments that during an election year have stolen money from the reserve accounts and used an artificially low number for their tax hikes to guarantee themselves re-election that year?

It happens all the time, and if any member across the floor has been a municipal councillor, you know the rule of thumb. In the third year you rob from reserves to make sure you get yourself another term. That's the way municipal government works. I will say this: They take from money they've put in the bank. In my opinion we're going down the road that will allow them to borrow money to guarantee their re-election, and that will be dangerous, very dangerous.

1700

I know the debate will come to this House, and the debate that will arise is much like Bill 143. It was another two-stage attack. The two-stage attack on the landfill sites was to put all the processes in place to do what they're doing today but don't do it, and then make the announcement that there are 57 dump sites in Metropolitan Toronto and the Minister of the Environment had nothing to do with it. The Minister of the Environment had nothing to do with the sites. She has nothing to do with pulling any off the table or putting any on. You pass this responsibility off to a nameless, faceless bureaucrat who has absolutely no responsibility to the electorate that they ran in.

This Minister of the Environment is now giving the Municipal Affairs minister some lessons in how to two-stage an attack that usurps our capacity to debate disentanglement, because this bill will have been passed today, and I submit, as I submitted on Bill 143, that the members opposite didn't have any idea what they were voting for. When they announced the 57 sites, you saw them dancing up and down asking questions in the House today that prove categorically they didn't understand what they were voting for in Bill 143, and when the debate comes about disentanglement, the same group from across the floor will stand up, just like on the landfill issue, and they'll cry and wail about the problems and concerns with disentanglement, but they've cast their votes some 12 months previously. That's the question we have to debate today.

The question is -- and I didn't hear the parliamentary assistant speak to this at all: Why is it this government feels it necessary to push the debenturing term out for municipal governments from 25 to 40 years? Why is that necessary? I can't recall any municipal official coming to me and saying, "Gee, Chris, what we need in our local government is 40-year debentures."

Why? I know why. Maybe the parliamentary assistant doesn't know why. I know why.

Mr Mills: Tell us.

Mr Stockwell: Do tell. Because the responsibility for building the bridges and roads in this province --

Mr Mills: Hypothetically.

Mr Stockwell: Of course it's hypothetical, but without a concrete, rational reason as to why you're extending the debenture term from 25 to 40 years, what else do we have to go on? You offer no rationale. You offer no reason. You offer nothing. It just was a whim, a fancy, a backroom decision.

Mr Jordan: Faceless bureaucrat.

Mr Stockwell: Made by a nameless, faceless bureaucrat with absolutely no reason.

There's a reason. They know in Metro what the reason is. The CAOs in all the local municipalities know what the reason is. I know the member for Brant-Haldimand was recently at a meeting of the CAOs. What came up from the chief administrative officers from all around the province? They believe the disentanglement argument is here, the debate is happening and this is a precursor to that debate, and the debate is, "We want you to take over roads and bridges and we'll take over social services." That's the debate.

[Applause]

Mr Stockwell: There may be applause. The member for Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Financial Institutions, applauds. More power to you. I agree. If that's what you fundamentally agree and that's what you think should happen, good. Let's debate it. But don't back-door legislation like this. Don't sneak this in the downstairs window when everyone's having a meeting in the parlour. Don't try and convince me that this legislation here has nothing to do with disentanglement. Stand up and defend your argument. Stand up and defend your position, because I know there are people out there who agree with you.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): We're not that well organized.

Mr Stockwell: They're not that well organized.

I don't think for a moment that you disagree with disentanglement. All I ask the minister to do is be forthright. Be up front. If that is what is necessary for disentanglement, let's have the debate, and let's have the debate in this House and allow the local municipalities to be given an opportunity to enter into the debate. But this is a back-door approach, and the same approach was used on Bill 143.

I might add -- and I speak directly to the cabinet -- eventually, I will say to this cabinet, if you keep operating in this fashion, you're going to very seriously undermine your caucus, because you have left the members in Durham with egg all over their faces and political careers in tatters on Bill 143. If you choose the same approach on disentanglement, my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, who swears this is a good idea, may find himself whistling a different tune come 12 months later.

Mr Murdoch: Wait till your municipalities get you.

Mr Stockwell: So be it.

Let's talk about AMO. Why does AMO support this? I don't take what AMO says as the rank and file approach for what municipalities believe.

Mr Murdoch: Not any more. It used to be.

Mr Stockwell: I don't believe that. I think AMO is predominantly made up, from the Metro region at least, of NDPers. There's no doubt in my mind that the members who operate in AMO and are elected from Metro council are in fact members of the NDP party, and I will point to them. They are card-carrying, active members.

Let's not waste time in suggesting AMO is in full support of this. I don't think AMO speaks for the municipalities of Ontario. I don't believe it. I think the mayors in municipalities of Ontario can speak for themselves. I think there are some very good, hardworking and honest people involved in AMO, but I think if they understood the local importance of this legislation they would have some sober second thoughts. If you were up front and told them this is a precursor to disentanglement, I think they would also have some second thoughts. If you told them you were passing on to local municipalities the capacity to borrow because we don't have the capacity any more, they'd also have some second thoughts.

The crunch of the issue is this: Why does the province want disentanglement? Why does the NDP want disentanglement? The simple fact is that this government hasn't got any more capacity to borrow -- none, zero, zip. Its credit rating drops on a yearly basis. They've borrowed themselves to the eyes. They can't afford the interest payments and now they look, salivating, to the local municipalities -- salivating, I'm certain, in cabinet -- and see the capacity that the local municipalities have to borrow. They are suggesting that, "The best way for us to borrow more money is to tell the local municipalities to do it for us."

Why do the municipalities have the capacity to borrow and provincial and federal governments don't? Because they've never had the legislation pass or the capacity to borrow. They had to pay as they go. It's created a very solid, financially sound municipal structure in Ontario.

Therefore this government is looking now to local municipalities to attempt to match its capacity to borrow. You want them to be as badly in debt as you are. It's kind of sad in a lot of ways, if it weren't so true. It's sad that the best this government can do today is to look to local municipalities to begin borrowing on its behalf because you haven't got any capacity left to borrow. You've blown it; you've used it all up: $11 billion last year, $15 billion this year, $26 billion over two years -- you've used up your capacity to borrow.

Mr Kormos: What happens next year?

Mr Stockwell: What happens next year is a very interesting argument.

The argument will be made from across the floor that we need to disentangle the issues of provincial and municipal spending. In my opinion the argument makes sense on some points. I believe there can be a degree of disentanglement. I think it's crazy that you have four levels of government performing the same functions in a lot of respects. I agree with that. I think there can be disentanglement and there should be disentanglement and that local municipalities will buy into disentanglement, but I don't think you should predetermine the debate by passing this legislation. I don't think you should be giving them the capacity to borrow before you ask their opinion. I don't think you should be increasing their exposure on the open markets before you have the debate.

1710

I see the people from Municipal Affairs below there. I'm certain they are learned people. I don't know any of them, but I'm quite sure they understand this issue and I'm quite certain they've fully briefed the minister. If the municipalities would like this, then why not present it? Why do we have to give them the capacity to borrow before we hear what the deal is?

Having spent some eight years on local council in Etobicoke and Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr Conway: That long?

Mr Stockwell: Eight years; I know. I've learned a few things. Some of them are applicable and some of them are less so up here. One thing I have learned is that the only way you can stop politicians from spending money is by not giving it to them. The difficulty now is you don't even have to give them the money any more, they just go out and borrow on your behalf. In the end, this piece of legislation has been written and designed to allow local municipal governments to borrow more money.

I said before, if a politician is faced with a tough decision or no decision -- and borrowing money is a non-decision -- if he or she is faced with a tough decision about a program or to borrow money, he or she will borrow money every time. I disagree with the member for Bruce on that point where he suggests that the local municipalities will do it. Local politicians are no different than you and I. Local politicians are no different than the federal government. Local politicians are that: They're politicians. When politicians are faced with a difficult decision, they pick the easiest route out. A living example is across the floor. When tough decisions were faced, they chose the easy route out and borrowed money.

Mr Murdoch: Deficit financing.

Mr Stockwell: Deficit financing.

In the end, we're going to have a debate a year from now on disentanglement and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, if it's the same as it is today, will stand up and say on that date in June, "We passed Bill 165 and you gave me the capacity and gave municipalities the capacity to take over responsibilities that were of the provincial purview in the past."

I want to go on record and, in closing, I want to be very clear. This is a mistake. Any government that is looking today at further debt and capacity to borrow more money is making a mistake. In the end it's much like the debates we had on pension improvements, wage settlements and so on. The general electorate doesn't understand it, so they don't call you. But those are the times when a politician has to understand what's best for his community, what's best for his taxpayers and what's best for the future of Ontarians.

Right now at this time there is nothing that could convince me it's for the benefit of Ontario taxpayers to find new and inventive ways to borrow money, because fundamentally the federal government is broke, the provincial government is broke and the only reason municipal governments aren't broke is they were never allowed to go broke. If you allow them to go broke, they'll be following you down that path, which means financial hardship, debt, debt servicing and borrowing. The only reason they all have triple A credit ratings is they couldn't borrow.

Mark my words across the floor: If you approve this, if you approve disentanglement, you will have inside of two decades municipalities appearing before committees of this House crying poor and begging for money because they won't be able to meet their payrolls, just like the position you'd be in today if you couldn't go out and borrow.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments?

Mr Mills: I'm going to say a few things in my allocated time for wrapup. But in this two minutes I'd just like to take the member for Etobicoke West up on a couple of things. He keeps on about the borrowing and it wasn't AMO. But it's my understanding that your friend or former friend, Frank Miller, when Premier of Ontario, pressed for this borrowing. So you might spend a little time talking to Frank.

I want to talk briefly too about the 40-year term of borrowing the member for Etobicoke West brought up. The 40-year term is a maximum that will apply to projects with a lifespan of more than 40 years. A 40-year term is the currently accepted term for amortizing debt relating to long-term capital projects. I'm going to reserve all my other comments to my wrapup portion.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I only want to speak to one part of this bill and that's the item that eliminates the need for OMB approval. If one looks back at the history of municipalities, I think during the days of the Honourable Wilf Spooner, municipalities had gotten themselves into just exactly what the member for Etobicoke West had said.

Interjection: Deep trouble.

Mr Callahan: Deep trouble, financial disaster. The OMB was brought forward to assist and monitor the borrowing of municipalities. I can see where AMO is probably very much in favour of this entire process because it gives it an opportunity to have much more money to deal with as it sees fit. I have great reserves about the OMB being removed because we are now in the same economic crisis as municipalities that went down the tube in the days of the Honourable Wilf Spooner when, I believe, historically the OMB was brought in as a sort of Senate, as it were, a -- what do they call the Senate?

Mr Stockwell: The chamber of sober second thought.

Mr Callahan: Chamber of sober second thought. I can see this as just being the start. There will be further suggestions by school boards and so on. The Minister of Education will be looking to give them those rights. It may be a very good idea on the surface but I think, in a very real way, the statements made by the member for Etobicoke West make sense. If we put municipalities in that position, particularly when we recognize that there are large municipalities and small municipalities throughout this province, we may very well be putting them in a position we will regret. Even though it's there, taking away the OMB approval for certain debt, I think it's a mistake and we'll rue the day we did it.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Jordan: I want to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there is a good reason for the government bringing in a bill to extend the borrowing power of the municipalities and the counties. Of course, as the members have previously pointed out, to give the borrowing power to the counties is really like a double take, if you will, because who do you think the county is going to get its money from to pay the interest on the loan? You have the municipality with increased borrowing powers and then you have the county council, which represents the municipalities and is really not directly answerable to the voters, borrowing money. You have a very cancerous situation that just grows and grows.

I think the other point is, why are we doing this? As the member has previously pointed out, he hasn't heard anyone coming forward asking the Ontario government to give them this power. The municipalities I'm in contact with are telling the government: "Leave the decision-making with us as to the needs of our municipalities. Don't dictate programs to us and fund them for a short time and then withdraw the finances and leave us with a legislated program."

That's what's causing the problem in the municipalities. As far as administering them and financing them is concerned, we're quite capable. But to give us the responsibility for roads and they take social services, maybe it should be the reverse. At least we in the municipality would find work for the people on welfare.

1720

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Sutherland: The comments by the member for Etobicoke West have been interesting, but I do think you tend to take on a little bit of a paternalistic tone, in the sense that really what is being said is that since we here do not trust municipalities to make their own decisions and to be accountable to their own taxpayers, we have to take a fatherly approach and guide them and say what they can and can't do.

I'm sure all of us have had times in the municipalities we represent when we have not agreed with the decisions local municipalities have taken. But part of the disentanglement process is also so the taxpayer can understand who is accountable for what services and they will be able to track it and the common thing we like to do in terms of passing the buck for responsibility, local municipalities passing the buck to us and us sometimes trying to pass the buck back to them, will not be able to occur.

I think it's a maturing process of understanding that municipalities have developed. They have developed in their internal structures at all kinds of different levels, and they should have the right to do that. All local municipal politicians face the consequences of their actions once every three years in the municipal elections. In other words, what it will ultimately mean is more accountability on those issues which they can control.

As the member for Lanark-Renfrew said, they want to be able to make the decisions. What this will mean is that they will have control over some of the funding and financing for their decisions as well. To me, that seems like a much better process and seems like a much better sense of accountability to the local property taxpayers, and I think all of the people in the province of Ontario are asking for more accountability.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West has two minutes in response.

Mr Stockwell: Quickly, I'll just start with Frank Miller. Frank Miller likes this. Well, that's interesting. Mel Swart wants publicly run auto insurance.

To the next: The question that's put forward to this House from the member for Oxford is that it's a maturing on the municipalities' part. They're maturing. They can handle more debt now because they're mature.

Why can't you allow them the opportunity to develop their own property in their regions? Why can't they annex or not annex areas in their own regions and cities? Why is it they can't develop their own waterfronts without you declaring provincial interests? Why can't they deal with their own garbage problem without you sticking your big nose into the issue?

It seems to me this government chooses to believe municipal governments are responsible when they want them to be responsible but not so when they don't. I think that argument holds not much water, about as much as a colander.

To move on, we talk about debt. I think who has come in here is a member who has proven that politicians don't handle deficit financing very well; it's the Treasurer of Ontario. In two short years, he has acquired more debt than the entire history of this province in the first 125. In two you've acquired $25 billion. In the first terms when the Conservatives were kicked out they had $25 billion -- excluding the Liberals, pardon me -- $25 billion from day one to 1985, and in two years you acquired $25 billion. This man is living proof why deficit financing doesn't work, and don't give politicians money, because they only spend it. I beg you, don't allow municipalities to deficit-finance. They'll end up in the same shape you are, which is horrible.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: In the two minutes you're given --

Interjection: No, it's the speech.

Mr Callahan: I realize that, but in the two minutes I was given I really didn't have an opportunity to speak on this. I just want to refer to one item, the power for "the purpose of counteracting fluctuations in foreign interest rates and the Canadian dollar," and so on, that is given to these municipalities under this act.

It seems to me that in the United States they have a very significant process tax-wise. They allow debentures of municipalities to be issued at 3% because they're tax-exempt. I think that's something that should be looked at by our federal government in terms of assisting municipalities under this bill to be able to market their debentures effectively. It's interesting that municipalities in the US have a very effective way of marketing their debentures for that reason.

It has not been a matter that has really been looked at. I can remember that when I was on municipal council, debentures were issued at a very much higher rate. Of course that all becomes a burden in terms of the totality of the taxation of the people of that municipality.

That's just the brief comment I want to make in being able to speak on this. It may be food for thought in any discussions that go on between the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Treasurer and his counterpart in Ottawa. He may very well want to look at that aspect in terms of, if we give municipalities much greater control over their future financially, we should look at giving that extra perk to be able to market their debentures.

I kind of thought that clause was put in there because some municipalities may very well market their debentures in the United States. They certainly become a very attractive investment in the United States for that reason. They're bought up by large foundations. They're bought up by people who are in a higher wealth category. They're considered to be a very worthy investment, and in fact what happens -- I guess in a sense Ottawa is subsidizing it by allowing that, but in essence the municipalities have a very much more attractive debenture to be issued.

The Acting Speaker: Question and/or comments?

Mr Conway: I want to say two things, one in response to the member who just spoke and one to the former speaker, the member for Etobicoke West. I thought the discourse around deficit financing was really interesting. I'll say in his absence what I said to him just a moment ago. I suppose in part, if Main Street, Canada, were the Kingsway in Etobicoke, we probably would have a different kind of debate. I can well imagine that if I represented a community like the western part of the city of Etobicoke, I might have a set of views on these matters that would put me at some considerable variance with someone who might represent rural Glengarry.

I say to my friend the member for Brampton South that one of the problems we've got to face in this, as we proceed through disentanglement, is that the question I want somebody to start addressing is, how are we going to address the variable financial capacity of municipalities across the province?

One of the things about Dominion-provincial relations is that in Newfoundland you've got the right to have a retail sales tax about twice what it is anywhere else in the country simply because there is very limited local wealth in Newfoundland.

There are going to be a number of municipalities in this province, when they see what the real cost, 100% or nearly 100% costing of things like roads and bridges, is going to be -- I'm glad the Treasurer is here, because he's very knowledgeable and very sympathetic to many of those assessment-poor, tax-poor municipalities in northern, eastern and southwestern Ontario. When they get the happy responsibility that disentanglement is going to give them, I suspect there are going to be local tax adjustments that are going to be the biggest news many of those communities will have seen in many a year.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Brampton South has two minutes in response.

Mr Callahan: I really only wanted to rise on that one point. I really have no reply since there has been only one question asked and that was by my colleague the member for Renfrew North, so I will end it that way.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too wish to express my concern on the matter the member for Brampton North had raised -- that is, the ability of municipalities to finance themselves essentially through deficit financing, where previously to do that type of financing they had to receive consent from the Ontario Municipal Board.

I can tell you, Mr Speaker, I have expressed that concern to municipalities in my riding, and every municipality I've spoken to on this subject, which is all of them, has confirmed that same concern -- that is, the fear that the taxpayers are fed up. That's the expression that has been put around this province: that property taxes are going up and more and more municipalities are so close to the line in so many areas they can't afford the roads and they can't afford the minimum services. It's going to be very tempting for them now to simply say: "Oh well, we don't need to go to the OMB. All we have to do is deficit finance."

We've seen what deficit financing has done in the federal government. Essentially, because deficit financing has got so out of hand, that's why this dreaded goods and services tax has developed, which we are all opposed to. If you extend the argument further, the fear we have is that that is going to happen in this place: The deficit in this place at the provincial level will get so out of hand, and how in the world are we going to pay it back, how are we going to maintain the interest, and are the same arguments that the federal people used going to be used by the provincial people? I have an aversion towards deficit financing. I believe many people in my constituency have that same aversion. If you can't afford it, you shouldn't be doing it.

Hon Mr Wildman: How do they buy their houses?

Mr Tilson: You're right. They do buy their houses with mortgage financing, but not to the degree that they can't afford to pay them back.

Somewhere along the line you have to realize that you can't spend any more. The provincial government is in debt to the hilt. The federal government is in debt to the hilt. That's obviously why this legislation is being put forward. There's one more area that we're not in debt to the hilt, and that is in the municipal level. I believe that's one of the major thoughts that this particular section is being put forward. This is the major opposition we have in our caucus; it is to this particular section. I think it's a shame they can't split the bill, because that is our major concern.

Certainly there is going to be no one now to independently stop municipalities when the pressure is being put on them to spend. Presently now, whether it's a road, whether it's a bridge, whether it's an arena or whether it's any other type of financial spending -- perhaps even salaries -- when you look at the overall package of expenditures required in a municipality, you have to go to the OMB. The answer of course that's given by administrators to their councillors is, "Well, you can't do that because that's going beyond the level that we're allowed and we have to go to the OMB to receive that approval."

They're discouraged from doing it. They are. They don't go ahead. That's a reasonable position. "We've reached our limit." Now the limit has been made higher and the property taxpayers, the people who are paying property taxes and who are complaining to all of us around this province, are going to have one more fear because there's going to be interest on this deficit. There are going to be additional expenditures made that normally wouldn't be made, because the heat will be on.

A comment has been made with respect to the subject of downloading and the whole subject of disentanglement and all of that business. This is probably the start of many bills which will continue to pass on the burden of our problems to the municipalities. It's not disentanglement; it's entanglement. In fact, I believe with grants and other financial assistance that perhaps might normally come from the province they might say: "You've got another source of income now. Perhaps we don't need to do that." I don't think that would be done directly, but it would cross their mind that: "There are other sources of income you can use. You don't need our grants." Hence the municipalities will be put more and more in debt.

I'm not going to go on and on about this subject other than simply to express my objection to it. I think the member for Etobicoke West summed it up in the concluding remarks of his speech when he said the only way you can stop politicians from spending is to prohibit them from spending and borrowing. That's what we have now: a prohibition to stop municipal politicians from spending.

We have too much government, too much spending, too much taxation going on now. In fact, it's been suggested in many circles that perhaps a similar restriction should be put on our provincial and federal politicians. That's a whole different story, but it's something I hear more and more: "How high will the deficits go? How much debt will our country go into? How much debt will our province receive? How much debt will our municipalities receive?"

We hear horror stories of American cities going into debt, specifically New York. They literally go bankrupt and there's no more money. I hope that's not where we're going and I hope members of the government who are putting this particular provision forward have thought that out, because I believe, as does the member for Etobicoke West, that in a decade that situation could occur in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Seeing none, further debate? Would the honourable parliamentary assistant want to wind up second reading of Bill 165?

Mr Mills: I'd just like a couple of minutes to say a few things. I'm not standing here this afternoon at this stage of the game to upset anybody or make them excited, but you really should have listened to what I said in the beginning. When I made my opening statement, I said the existing approval process for capital undertakings would be streamlined. That's what this bill is all about -- it streamlines.

We agreed that the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board would no longer be required provided the undertakings do not exceed the limits and conditions set by the province. Nowhere in this bill does it extend the amount that can be borrowed; nowhere, nohow. That is contrary to the position that has been put here this afternoon that somehow or other, magically, municipalities can go into debt miles over their heads. That just isn't the case. It misreads the bill and it's not correct.

One of the members -- I believe it was the member for Etobicoke West -- spoke about borrowing to offset operating costs. The 15% increase in Metro's costs was not driven by capital costs but by operating costs. This bill will not allow any short-term operating costs to be met with long-term debts.

In conclusion, to this date municipalities can and do borrow, they debenture, and this bill doesn't alter that at all.

I just wanted to correct those few things, and with that, we'll move on.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Mills has moved second reading of Bill 165. 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.

Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): I understand there was an agreement among the House leaders earlier today to do third reading this afternoon, so I would ask for unanimous consent to proceed to that now.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for third reading of Bill 165? Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Mills, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved third reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities.

The Acting Speaker: Does the parliamentary assistant have opening remarks?

Mr Mills: No, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Debate on third reading? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that third reading of Bill 165 occur?

Motion agreed to.

CO-OPERATIVE CORPORATIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SOCIÉTÉS COOPÉRATIVES

Mr Owens, on behalf of Mr Charlton, moved second reading of Bill 166, An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Landlord and Tenant Act with respect to Co-operatives / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi sur la location immobilière en ce qui concerne les coopératives.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable parliamentary assistant have some opening remarks?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): The amendments to the Co-operative Corporations Act are designed to encourage the development of more cooperatives in Ontario, especially housing and worker cooperatives. The bill also enhances the role these community-based, democratic institutions can play in rebuilding our economy, creating jobs and positioning Ontario for the future.

In particular, the amendments simplify the incorporation and operation of worker co-ops as businesses owned and operated by workers. In addition, the bill enables cooperatives to operate with the same powers as other corporations registered under the Ontario Business Corporations Act.

To preserve affordable housing, the bill would prevent housing co-ops from converting to profit-making corporations. During the past decade, increased real estate values have led to the concern that non-profit housing cooperatives could be sold or turned into profit-making businesses.

At the same time, these amendments maintain the distinct characteristics of this type of housing and member control. This bill also allows for greater flexibility in setting the rate of return on capital raised by co-ops. In addition, it eases the financial burden of the cost of annual audits for smaller co-ops by allowing the exemption if members agree.

These amendments are the result of extensive consultations with interest groups over a number of months. In particular, discussions were undertaken with the Canadian Co-operative Association, the Ontario Worker Co-op Association and the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario. Individual co-ops were consulted as well. During these consultations, the cooperative movement was extremely supportive of the changes reflected in these amendments and enthusiastic about the new legislative environment they will create.

We see the cooperative movement as a front-line tool of economic policy and service to people. We believe cooperatives can offer unique solutions to many of our social and economic problems. These amendments will allow cooperatives to move ahead with their important work and better use the unique contribution they can make to our economy.

The cooperative movement is the best self-help tool we know and we've used it well in Ontario for more than 100 years. It's been effectively used for housing, a trend that we hope continues, despite the federal government's recent cutbacks in the co-op housing program.

As well, across the province, we have good examples of worker co-ops and other innovative uses of the cooperative structure as an organizational tool, but we certainly need more.

When we think of the kinds of social and economic problems that have emerged over the past 20 years, we find responses to these problems haven't looked often enough to mechanisms like cooperative organizations as a self-help tool. For the most part, groups responding to emerging social and economic problems have relied on a tax base or charitable approach to their operation but, as we have seen, those sectors that have adopted the co-op movement have benefited from an organizational structure that promotes sound and economically responsible approaches to basic community economic development.

This government has developed legislation which assists the movement in becoming a more important part of the way we do business as residents in our communities. Cooperatives have served especially well with smaller players within the economic structure. For example, credit unions and caisses populaires have provided financial support to small businesses that don't fulfil the requirements of larger financial institutions.

Housing co-ops provide affordable accommodation in areas major developers ignore. As a result, growing numbers of individual Ontarians are finding a comfortable philosophic home within the cooperative movement. They are finding comfort in business environments dedicated to the common good.

People are joining cooperatives today for the same reasons they have joined since the movement began in Canada over 100 years ago: because they appreciate the fundamental operating principle of democratic ownership and because they are well served by the diverse character of individual cooperatives, a diversity that provides unique invaluable services tailored to members' needs.

Cooperative members are attracted today, as they always have been, by a history of innovation in providing goods and services, by principles of mutual help and cooperation and by the bonds members create in communities rather than institutions. This understanding of both personal and social value in co-ops, owned and controlled by the people they serve, has created a powerful economic force in Ontario, a force that draws its strength from like-minded individuals banding together to improve the economic and social health of their communities.

Right now, Ontario needs to harness the power the cooperative movement can provide, perhaps more than we have needed at any other point in our history. Economic renewal is a goal government alone cannot achieve. Business can't do it alone; labour can't do it alone. We know that each sector, and for that matter each individual, has a significant role to play.

The government has significant expectations about the role people together in creative, cooperative action can play. The cooperative movement has demonstrated a commitment to strong local economies reflecting social justice, wide opportunity for community involvement and support for individual initiative and participation.

The ministry staff worked extensively with members of the cooperative movement. Their joint effort was important to the development of these amendments that recognize and protect the distinctive nature of the cooperative sector. Significant and supportive contributions to the statute were also made by the ministries of the Attorney General, Housing and Agriculture and Food.

Widespread support for the amendments in this bill was reflected throughout the consultation process. In view of that, we hope we can look forward to the support of all members to assist in speedy passage of these important amendments. We believe cooperatives can play an even stronger part in rebuilding our economy, and I urge all members to support this important legislation that will assist in making that possible.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Bill 166, which amends the Co-operative Corporations Act, is in fact an important piece of legislation and it's timely that we deal with it at this particular moment. The Minister of Financial Institutions has told us for some time now that we would be reading this bill in the Legislature for second reading, and we have awaited the debate of this bill with some anticipation and are happy to participate in the debate.

It's noteworthy that the act that is being debated today has not been substantially updated since 1973. Since that time, the types of cooperatives that exist and the environment in which they operate have changed substantially.

Over the past number of years, various cooperatives and their representative associations have lobbied extensively for changes to the legislation that governs their activities. Various governments have consulted widely to achieve consensus. Consensus seems to have been achieved, and all cooperative organizations are anxious for the legislation to proceed.

Primary cooperative associations involved in this process have included the United Co-operatives of Ontario, the Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario, Gay Lea Foods, the Ontario Federation of Food Co-operatives and Clubs, the Ontario Federation of Worker Co-operatives and the Conseil de la Coopération de l'Ontario.

The wide variety of cooperative associations reflects the fact that cooperatives participate in an assortment of sectors and activities. Many sectors in which cooperatives participate today did not exist in 1973. That in itself has resulted in several ambiguities and obstacles for cooperatives wishing to conduct their business.

1750

The greatest growth in the cooperative sector has occurred in the area of housing. Growth has been steady for several years, but the NDP has increased spending in this sector -- or at least we thought it did; they slowed down this year -- thereby making the need for change ever more pressing.

Incongruities between the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Co-operative Corporations Act have resulted in administrative difficulties within housing co-ops. Ejecting tenants, ie members, is very difficult, and the bill helps in this manner and will also delineate the steps required for eviction. The current act does not consider eviction of tenants and the courts have found that the Landlord and Tenant Act does not apply. The result has been a growing awareness among problematic tenants that they are, by virtue of membership, above the law.

As well, student housing cooperatives have their own unique problems because of the transient nature of students and the need to terminate eligibility for membership at the end of one's enrolment in an educational facility. The bill removes that uncertainty.

The proposed amendments also reflect the need to maintain the integrity of the cooperative system, particularly in the housing sector. Although it has never occurred in Ontario, rapidly escalating real estate values and the lack of any legislation to the contrary could, with the support of a cooperative's membership, allow individual co-ops to pay off the mortgage, disband the cooperative, sell the assets and distribute the proceeds to the membership. Clearly, that would be against the intent of establishing the housing cooperative from the beginning. The new legislation says that dividends are to be declared and distributed on the surplus arising from operations. Only the proceeds of assets sold in the ordinary course of business can be distributed.

The Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario is concerned that this legislation may not be speedily approved, and therefore there is some anxiety within the community. The current act governing cooperatives does not reflect the fact that some co-ops, eg cheese producers -- and this may be of interest to you, Mr Speaker -- do not, in a legal sense, produce product directly from their members. The new bill updates the legislation to reflect the role of marketing boards as intermediaries.

Most of the remaining portions of the bill are housekeeping in nature and relate to items of peculiar interest to housing co-ops. For example, membership entitlements are defined so that the rights to an apartment are more clearly explained. The procedures for removing a member from his or her apartment are described, and it is specified that you can give up possession of an apartment and also relinquish your membership in a co-op and vice versa.

We have two key concerns on the amendments that have been brought forward.

Point 1: The new act does not include any reference to overhauling or opening up the process by which membership in cooperative housing is granted. At present, applicants to housing co-ops are accepted or rejected on the basis of some committee's recommendations with no clear criteria delineated or required in legislation, and we know what kind of problems that can present. The Co-operative Housing Association of Ontario provides individual co-ops with parameters, but co-ops are not consistent in their application, we've been told.

Point 2, which is of interest to us, is that the 1991 Provincial Auditor's report indicates that the Ministry of Housing had no means, systems or standards by which to ensure that non-profit and cooperative housing groups were accepting high-needs clients from local housing authorities. In fact, we've heard that there are members of the Legislature living in co-ops. You can remember maybe only a year ago there was a high-profile case here in the city where a city council person who was running for mayor on the NDP slate was noted for his residence in a co-op. It was further noted that his spouse held public office and between the two of them they had a very substantial salary. Most people thought it was unfair that they took the space of maybe some others who could probably utilize the apartment and probably need the apartment on a greater-need basis.

I don't think we should be building co-op housing and asking the taxpayers to support co-op housing so that members of the Legislature and people who hold high office can live in it. I don't think that was the general purpose and the intent of co-op housing.

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Market rent.

Mr Mancini: Market rent? The members opposite are now confusing the issue. They say that everyone who lives in a co-op pays market rent. That may be true for some people, it may be true for all, but at the same time there is some subsidy, it was pointed out by the Provincial Auditor. As a matter of fact, I say to my colleagues opposite, we've asked the Provincial Auditor to conduct further work in this area. We'll know more clearly exactly what it does cost the taxpayers to help in the establishment and the maintenance of these co-ops.

I think it's a great idea. I don't see anything wrong with what we're doing. I just don't think people who hold high office should occupy a co-op unit when you and I know there is a great need in our community. I don't think people whose gross incomes exceed $150,000 a year should be put ahead of someone who maybe is trying to support a family on $40,000 a year.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Remo, get with it.

Mr Mancini: Somebody over there, probably the Minister of Housing, says, "Get with it." If she wants to defend what I consider to be the indefensible, and if she thinks people like the former mayoral candidate of the city of Toronto and his spouse who also held office should live in a co-op and take that unit from someone else, that's fine. If she thinks members of the Legislature should have that privilege, that's fine. She can defend it. She can explain it to the people of Ontario. I'm not going to defend it. I don't think it's a proper practice and I don't think that was the general principle under which co-ops were built.

I'd like to conclude by saying that in regard to what we've just talked about, the Provincial Auditor is going to be doing some more work for the standing committee on public accounts. We are going to be working with the Ministry of Housing hopefully so that we can put in place systems that will show some fiscal responsibility. We'll be able to explain to the people of Ontario exactly what we're doing, how we're doing it, why we're doing it and exactly what it costs. I don't think that's too much to ask of any government or of any ministry or of any policy that's going to be supported by the Legislature.

[Report continues in volume B]