Journal des débats 1986-juil-07 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Stevenson: In early June, I raised the issue of liability insurance for agricultural fairs. To date, there is no indication of government action. Community fairs, such as the Sutton Fair and Horse Show to be held during the first week in August, have no affordable liability insurance. Fairs with a significant horse show division appear to be having the greatest difficulty obtaining affordable insurance. Fairs and horse shows are an important part of life in rural Ontario today. They are also a significant aspect of the traditions of rural life.

As a further concern, the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) has indicated to me that the International Plowing Match and Farm Machinery Show is having great difficulty obtaining affordable liability insurance for its horse division competition.

As in June, our caucus urges the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) and the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) to provide a stronger public role in providing affordable liability insurance to fair boards, as suggested in the Slater report.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Wildman: Today the Ontario New Democrats are introducing 11 resolutions to begin to build a stable, prosperous economy for northern Ontario. In the past few months, the northern economy has been under attack and almost 5,000 northern jobs have been lost or threatened. Study after study in recent months has made specific recommendations designed to tackle the structural problems bedevilling the economy of northern Ontario. These recommendations are being left to gather dust.

Tomorrow the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will outline his government's plans for northern Ontario. New Democrats are notifying him and his government today that northerners do not need a by-election. They do not need more studies. They do not need glitzy programs that fail to deal with the serious structural problems in northern communities. What they need is a government that will put more control over northern development into the hands of northerners.

One of the resolutions today is basic. It deals with the setting-up of a northern Ontario fund, an earmarked fund that will be used to provide loans, grants and joint ventures to assist in economic growth.

Northern minerals and forests produce in excess of $15 billion a year for the economy of this province and yet little is reinvested in the north. We are experiencing a depression and a lot of jobs have been lost. Unless other measures are taken, such as dealing with exorbitantly high gasoline prices in the north, any attempt to develop jobs in the north will fail.

BRAMPTON FESTIVAL

Mr. Callahan: I rise today to thank publicly a number of people who were kind enough to attend with me Carabram 1986 in the city of Brampton. Specifically, the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) was kind enough to attend, and I believe she had a good time.

Other people I would like to thank publicly, for Hansard's purposes, are Caryl and Brian McCabe, Gerry and Betty Fitzhenry, Linda and Bob Reid, Pierre and Coleen Beaumier, Dennis Martel and Jane Shanab.

It was an excellent weekend, enjoyed by all, and I hope more of the members of the Legislature will have an opportunity to come out to next year's festivities and see a festival that is equal to, if it does not surpass, Caravan of Toronto.

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Andrewes: From time to time in this Legislature, the issue of intervener funding has been raised by way of questions and statements. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has indicated support for the principle, as have several of his predecessors, but he and the government have yet to support the principle with a legislative mandate.

This matter is of special interest to me and my constituents, particularly since the Ontario Waste Management Corp., a crown corporation, proposes to locate a liquid industrial waste site in my riding. The proposal will be subject to an environmental assessment, and many interested groups want to appear before the environmental assessment panel. The Ontario Waste Management Corp. and the government created a high level of expectation, and it is now incumbent on both parties to deal with this issue.

I was surprised and amazed during the estimates of the Ministry of the Environment when Dr. Chant indicated that the criteria for intervener funding and allocation of funding should not be the mandate of the corporation. In the meantime, while the Ontario Waste Management Corp. and the Minister of the Environment, wherever he might be, toss the ball back and forth, many concerned citizens are awaiting an answer. I appeal to the minister to put his mind to this task.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Ramsay: One of the resolutions we are bringing to the House today is that the Ontario New Democrats feel not only that northern development is important but also that private companies should negotiate when they want to use the publicly owned natural resources of the north. These agreements should include, but would not be limited to, guarantees from the company to employ and train local residents, to reinvest in northern communities and to use the services of local businesses. Input from communities affected by resource development would play a major role in these negotiations.

We would also like to see the establishment of a community adjustment fund, because plant closings and mass layoffs in the north often have a tremendous impact on the ability of local government to provide adequate services. A plant closing not only deprives local government of revenue but also does so at the very time it creates an increased demand for services, such as family counselling and welfare maintenance. Because of the severity of the impact on local communities, we feel a separate and identifiable fund should be established.

TOURIST BUREAU FOR THE DISABLED

Mr. Rowe: Recently, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Ruprecht) made an announcement with respect to the Decade of Disabled Persons and what his government was going to do to improve services for the disabled. In the light of the minister's statement, I want to bring to the attention of this government a proposal for a very worthwhile service which has been before several ministries for some time; namely, a tourist bureau for the disabled.

It seems this government is not quite as committed in its pledge to better the lives of the disabled as it claims. Not only has the government refused any assistance for this program, but also the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is too busy to sit down and discuss the proposal with the author and the consultant.

On several occasions, the consultant has been in touch with the minister to discuss the proposal further. The response has been so limited, she felt compelled to write a very strongly worded letter to the minister, dated June 11, to which she has not yet received a response or even an acknowledgement. She has had no success in following up the status of the response, and the minister's office does not even return her calls.

Is this what the government is doing to help improve services for the disabled? What better service for the disabled than a tourist bureau for them? Since nondisabled tourists can obtain information free of charge, it is only fair that disabled tourists should be able to receive the same reliable information. Not only would the bureau provide a valuable and needed service, it would also cause more employment for the disabled and bring more tourism revenue into the province.

I want to know why an open government and one seemingly concerned about the needs of the disabled does not have time to sit down for half an hour and discuss the proposal for a tourist bureau for the disabled.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Foulds: Like my colleagues the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) and the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay), I rise to indicate that northern Ontario is in need of real economic development, and government initiative and intervention to accomplish it. With unemployment at twice that of the provincial average, the north must participate in the economic buoyancy being experienced by the rest of the province. If it cannot, then what is a government for? It is time to abandon rinky-dink Band-Aid approaches. It is time for the government to treat the north differently in order to treat it equally.

Job creation and job protection in northern Ontario have to be the key elements in the government's policy towards the north. Specific initiatives to support that key government policy must be:

1. The establishment of a medical school in northern Ontario. We must attract specialists to the north. With a population the same as Saskatchewan's, the north deserves such a medical school.

2. We must have the massive decentralization of ministries and ministry personnel affecting the north so that people who make the decisions about the north live in and experience the north.

3. We must have in the north the establishment of a forestry institute, a northern technology research and development institute and an Ontario mining development foundation.

All these were recommendations of the Rosehart report on resource-dependent communities.

It is time for the government to stop talking and to start acting.

2:11 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In the speech from the throne in April, the government announced its intention to launch a thorough review of Ontario's system of social assistance. A review of these programs by my ministry's staff has been under way for several months.

Today I wish to announce the appointment of an independent public review committee that will help us forge a system that can face the challenges of the 1990s and beyond.

This province spends more than $1.5 billion a year on social assistance programs that directly touch the lives of some half a million men, women and children, but there are still people in Ontario who are hungry and homeless.

Over time, the government has responded to changing needs by developing new programs and benefits; however, the two major pieces of income maintenance legislation have remained largely unchanged for two decades. Those statutes were designed for a different age -- a time of much lower unemployment and a time when most women stayed home, the great majority of families had two parents, and fathers were typically the sole wage earners in the family. For many, that is not the reality of life in Ontario in 1986. As a result, I am convinced our system of social assistance needs a thorough overhaul.

One of the main purposes of the review I am announcing today will be to examine the overall direction of social assistance in Ontario. The committee members have been asked to provide a wide-ranging set of objectives to guide us in changing these programs to meet the needs of the future. That will include an analysis of evolving client characteristics and needs as well as changing delivery modes and technologies.

In addition, the committee members have been asked to examine some specific questions, such as: Is there sufficient direct support being provided to those already on assistance? Is support available to all who should receive it? Is assistance being provided in a fair and efficient manner? What role are emergency services such as food banks and hostels playing and what role should they be playing?

I am pleased to announce that former family court judge George Thomson has agreed to serve as chairman of this committee. For several years, Mr. Thomson was an assistant deputy minister of Community and Social Services. He is currently director of education at the Law Society of Upper Canada.

There are 11 other members of the committee. Each of them brings a special perspective to the problems we face in the field of social assistance.

Those members are the Reverend Owen Burey, president of the Chatham-Kent Multicultural Council and president of the Council of Jamaicans in Ontario; Joanne Campbell, a Metropolitan Toronto councillor and a member of the Metro community services and housing committee; Jacques Coté, chief administrative officer of the town of Hearst; Phil Johnston, commissioner of social services for the regional municipality of Waterloo and a past president of the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association; Dr. Clarke MacDonald, former moderator of the United Church of Canada and director of the Office of Church in Society; Wally McKay, executive director of Tikinagan Child and Family Services, based in Sioux Lookout, and past regional Ontario chief; Terry Meagher, former secretary-treasurer of the Ontario Federation of Labour and secretary of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Diane Mountain, a single parent from Kitchener and an associate member of Mothers Making Change, a self-help group for recipients of social assistance; John Southern, vice-president of the Blind Organization of Ontario with Self-help Tactics and himself a past recipient of social assistance; Fern Stimpson, corporate human resource officer for the Manufacturers' Life Insurance Co., and Ruth Wildgen, an alderman from the city of Ottawa and a single parent, who has a special interest in the needs, especially the housing needs, of Ontario's low-income residents.

I have directed the committee to solicit views from all relevant parties, especially those who are directly affected by these programs. To ensure we get a wide range of input, my ministry has prepared a guide that provides complete details of the public review.

The work of the committee will begin immediately, and I expect its report by the spring of 1987. I am confident that this process will lead to meaningful legislative change, which will provide us with the tools to better assist those we have the obligation and privilege of serving.

Mr. Cousens: As the province looks on, we are seeing changes in Ontario. We see the Urban Transportation Development Corp. being sold. We see the Pitman report on education. We see changes in the beer stores. As we now see changes being made in the whole social field, we want to make sure they are for the better. I look to T. C. Haliburton, who in 1840 in Sam Slick said, "Changing one thing for another is not always reform." As we look at the social assistance programs in Ontario, we are looking for changes that will mean something and will help the recipients who are in need of social services.

I ask for three things in the social assistance review report that the minister is calling for today. The first is that the time taken by this analysis is not an excuse for delaying the funding of key programs and key projects that must be continued, where the people who are asking for special needs will receive that assistance.

I would not want this to be a time to say, "Now we can stand pat, we can"--

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I wish you would do something to control these animals on my left. You bring the House to order when we are talking, and this is constant.

Let this not be an excuse for delaying the important projects that have to be maintained and continued to be helped by the province.

Second, I question the whole layout of this program. There has not been a review of the bureaucratic duplication that takes place. Certain projects are provincially funded and municipally funded. Where there is duplication, I would like to see added to this whole project the conservative principle of trying to save money where one can.

Finally, in listing the people who are going to take part in this very important review, all of whom are worthy in their qualifications, why are some business elements not included? Very often, in the process of developing programs, one key partner of that process will be omitted. Why do we not have a more business-oriented person in there? I know there is one person who is an analyst in social policy in a large insurance company, but can there not be more from the business perspective? I think we need the business point of view in running government. I would very much like to see that, even in the social assistance field.

Mr. Speaker, I think an offence is being done in this House when the people on my left are becoming so ignorant they do not have time to sit and listen.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Now that we have heard from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, I want to--

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Does the member want to make it better or worse?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize for saying that of the honourable members on my left.

Mr. McClellan: The member is upset. I apologize.

I want to respond and welcome the statement made today by the Minister of Community and Social Services. I should tell my Tory friend he did not announce any changes, in case my friend thought he had. He announced a study and a review, and there is a difference. However, I welcome this review, because I believe it is the first time since 1965, when the Canada assistance plan was introduced, that there has been a serious, systematic and, I hope, consequential review of our social assistance legislation.

There was an aborted attempt in the 1970s when Mr. Lalonde attempted to initiate an income security review with his orange paper, but the minister knows, as do all the members of the House, that review simply petered out in a morass of federal-provincial jurisdictional conflicts and disputes. I hope very much that same dismal process will not be repeated in this study before us because, as I have said, many of the problems that confront social assistance recipients result from the fact that when the Canada assistance plan was initiated in 1965, there was no real adjustment of the income security base for the various programs we have had with us for the past 20 years.

Income security has never been based on any objective measurement of what it costs to provide a decent or adequate standard of living. That is as true in 1986 as it was in 1966, 1946 and 1926. In the course of this study, the minister has a responsibility to address himself to the scandalous reality that if one lives on social assistance in this province in 1986, one is condemned to live a life below any decent standard of living, a life of poverty, humiliation and deprivation. That is the reality for many hundreds of thousands of people.

I hope the minister will attempt to equalize the discrepancies among various groups of people, some of whom are identified as good guys--the disabled and the elderly--and others who are identified as bad guys--single, unemployed people and sole-support parents. These kinds of discrepancies have no place in the 1980s, the 1990s and beyond.

We hope this study will be crowned with success and legislation will flow out of it that will provide a decent standard of living to those who must turn to social assistance for support.

Finally, we commend the minister on the very excellent team that has been assembled, under the leadership of George Thomson. Many of us have worked with him and admire his work a great deal. The other members of the team are equally impressive. On the basis of the array of talent that has been put together to conduct this review, we hold out a fair degree of optimism that its work will be successful. We hope the government will have the will and the courage to follow through on the recommendations that are produced.

IMMIGRANT INVESTORS

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I would like to take this opportunity to discuss Ontario's position relative to the changes in the business immigrant program recently announced by the federal government.

Ontario has had an immigrant entrepreneur program since 1976. In its first decade, this joint Ontario-federal program has seen 3,751 immigrant entrepreneur applications approved. For the 1985-85 fiscal year alone, the program brought Ontario at least $82 million in investment and the creation or maintenance of 3,396 jobs.

In November 1985, the federal Minister of State for Immigration announced an expansion to the business immigration program that both increased the target quotas for 1986 and introduced a new investor category of "immigrant" to the existing "self-employed" and "entrepreneur" categories. The admission criteria for the "investor" category removed the requirement that the individual be actively involved in the day-to-day management of the subject enterprise.

Over the past several months, Ontario has consulted extensively with the federal and all other provincial governments as well as the legal and private-sector bodies. Today I am prepared to announce that this government will support applications under the new business immigrant "investor" category.

Ontario has traditionally felt that the most appropriate business immigrants are those who have personally owned, managed or operated successful businesses overseas and wish to do the same in this province. We believe there can also be significant benefit to our economy through the participation of investor immigrants.

The federal criteria for this new category require that the applicant has personally accumulated a net worth of at least $500,000 and is willing to invest a minimum of $250,000 into an eligible Canadian business for at least a three-year period. Ontario accepts these parameters, but will also require that such investment be by way of equity or subordinated shareholder's loan, and that the investment be made by the applicant directly into the project or company and not through a third party or holding company.

We will also continue to apply our traditional criteria to all applications by business immigrants. The venture must offer visible benefit to Ontario; there must be sufficient capital to establish viably the enterprise; evidence of the applicant's business expertise is required, and a specific estimate of the number of Ontario jobs to be created is needed.

2:20 p.m.

My ministry will conduct a review of our participation in the investor immigrant program after the first 12 months, to evaluate its success and eligibility guidelines.

We believe the new "investor" category can be of special value to smaller business enterprises and other community-driven projects and will contribute even further to the success story of our immigrant entrepreneur program.

Mr. Brandt: In response to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, with respect to the immigrant entrepreneur program, the statement the minister made today is rather cautious. The immigrant entrepreneur program is an excellent program that can provide a great number of jobs and new development in our province.

I suggest that the very small step the minister is taking, with respect to making it possible for investors simply to invest in a business without being actively involved, does not take the issue far enough. In my view, this program, which created more than 3,000 jobs last year and close to $80 million in investment capital in our province, is one that could be used to satisfy some of the questions raised by our friends from the north. If the immigrant entrepreneurs were directed towards specific, one-industry communities, or if there were some sort of emphasis put on the need for them to go to those communities, I believe jobs could be created in areas where it is very difficult to create them at present.

Although it was a fine statement, frankly, I do not think it goes far enough. It does not say enough about how we are going to do some of the things that are needed to be done in eastern Ontario, in northern Ontario and in some of the high unemployment areas of southwestern Ontario. I suggest the minister look very closely at using this program as a vehicle for development, not only in the major metropolitan centres, but in centres where these immigrant entrepreneurs can establish a sound foundation for new development, new growth and new jobs and move in the direction of satisfying some of those needs in our province as well.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment briefly on the statement made today by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. After a weekend in which we have celebrated the 100th anniversary of the Statute of Liberty, whose motto is, as I am sure everyone will know, "Give us your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," it is hard to resist commenting on a statement by the minister which says, "Give us your applicants with a personal net worth of at least $500,000 who are willing to invest a minimum of $250,000."

I say this not facetiously but very seriously to the minister: There are a great many people in this hall today who would not be here if the federal government of the day had applied such criteria to applicants seeking to come to this country.

I am troubled by the focus of the federal government's immigration efforts on people with so-called higher education and larger assets. I am surprised this government has not been more vocal in stating its concern about the fairness of the new approach to immigration. I am deeply disappointed, as I think many people will be, that the only statement we have had on immigration from this government deals with the approval of the so-called investor category.

There are a great many problems facing those who are seeking to come to this country, and this statement does not deal with those problems.

2:30 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier that relates to a number of people, specifically women and injured workers, who today are much worse off in the health care system than they were several months ago.

I want to ask about the Workers' Compensation Board problem. The Premier no doubt will be aware that doctors are currently refusing to see and make reports on behalf of injured workers so their claims may be processed and adequately and fairly dealt with. This is a direct result of two things: (1) the ministry's refusal to renegotiate the contract that expired last April 1 and (2) the interpretation put on Bill 94. Can the Premier tell the injured workers of this province what he intends to do on their behalf to sort out this problem, which his government created?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) can bring the member up to date on that situation.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member has raised a matter that is of concern to us because we want to ensure that injured workers continue to get their claims approved as quickly as possible and remain on the rolls of the WCB for the appropriate time. I know a concern has been raised by the Ontario Medical Association. The government is very anxious that there be no interruption of service between the physicians and the WCB.

Essentially, there is no problem at all in terms of the rates of remuneration. We have taken a fairly careful look at this. We have obtained a number of legal opinions from within and from outside government. They are unanimous that the wording of the Workers' Compensation Act allows the payments to continue at the rate at which they are being paid now; if my memory serves me correctly, that is about 98.5 per cent of the OMA rate.

The member is correct as well when he says the present agreement between the board and the OMA ran out at the end of March 1986. There have been some preliminary discussions between the parties because of a number of other matters that have been going on in the past few months. The discussions have not been substantive, but I understand the board will be approaching the OMA to see whether those discussions can resume shortly.

Mr. Grossman: Bill 94 was passed several weeks ago. The minister and his government knew Bill 94 was about to be passed, and since April 1 nothing has been done to renegotiate the contract.

As recently as this morning, we were informed that Dr. Elgie had told those attending a meeting to try to resolve this that the advice he had been given was that Bill 94 did prevent and prohibit the expenditure the minister is talking about. With all this advance notice, how can the minister have arrived at a circumstance where today he is standing here and giving one story when the injured workers and the chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board are under exactly the opposite impression? What is going on?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: With respect, I do not believe the chairman of the WCB is of that point of view at all. I had some discussions with Dr. Elgie this morning. We carefully reviewed the opinions we have received as to the impact of Bill 94 as they pertain to subsection 52(7) of the Workers' Compensation Act.

If one looks at it, it is clear from the legislation that the Ontario health insurance plan schedule, which is dealt with in the very narrow sense of Bill 94, applies for payments for treatment under the Health Insurance Act. I am sure the honourable member knows that WCB services are expressly excluded as insured services. Consequently, in a sense, Bill 94 simply upholds that exclusion. We believe the payments that have been made up until now and that will continue to be made biweekly are quite right and proper. Of course, they are subject to adjustment as soon as the parties can sit down and negotiate an adjustment to those services.

Mr. Grossman: I am not going to argue with the minister the interpretation of Bill 94, which, to put it at its mildest, is obviously open to much division of opinion with regard to the impact, so that the injured workers and others now face a lot of confusion which still surrounds this issue two weeks or 10 days after the bill was passed.

My question would be more appropriately addressed to the Premier, who refers these questions elsewhere. Whichever interpretation is right--and we believe he has a large problem facing him--the fact is that his ministry refused to renegotiate the schedule on April 1. If the minister believes Bill 94 had no bearing whatsoever on the WCB payments, can he explain to this House why he, the Premier and the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) did nothing whatsoever from April 1 on to renegotiate that schedule?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable Leader of the Opposition may have forgotten the small fact that it is not the Premier, the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour who negotiates with the OMA; it is the WCB's board of directors. There have been discussions between the parties, and the OMA has indicated the kind of adjustment to the fee schedule it is seeking.

Mr. Grossman: Did the minister give them any direction?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If this government were to give direction of any kind in these matters, it certainly would not be to direct the kind of very sloppily worded agreement, which has just expired, on which the previous government helped give direction.

Mr. Grossman: Everything in this government is someone else's problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Premier. I have some information I would like to share with the Premier today, and I have it written out so he will have an opportunity to peruse it.

The Premier has asked whether the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines benefited in some fashion from his ownership of Golden Tiger, the mining development company we have been discussing in this House for a matter of the past week or so.

The information I have provided the Premier with today indicates that the shares of Golden Tiger were trading in July 1985, immediately following the former minister's appointment to cabinet, at approximately 40 cents per share. It further indicates that no move was made to divest any of those shares from the then minister's ownership in escrow or by way of a blind trust he had set up. A divestiture of those shares could have taken place prior to the end of the year, but no such divestiture occurred.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Brandt: I will be getting to the question very quickly.

It is interesting to note that the shares hit an all-time high towards the end of December 1985, when the then minister decided to sell those shares at double the amount of money they were trading at in July 1985. Will the Premier now admit there is a way in which the former minister could have derived some benefit from the appreciation of those shares?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there was ever any question that we have established already in this House that shares can go up, down or stay the same. Whether there is any direct action the minister took that influenced the outcome of these shares, I have no idea.

The honourable member has presented me with four pages of information; he may have something I am not aware of. These are very appropriate matters to bring up in the committee. I know the member will want to do that to try to establish whether some untoward influence was exercised.

Mr. Brandt: Can the Premier indicate how it is possible, after various cabinet ministers have indicated the very severe screening process he put them through, that these shares could remain in the hands of one minister, be retained under ownership for that period and be sold only when they reached the peak level of the stock market?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure what was paid for the shares or the chronology of their value. The member has brought some information to bear today. Frankly, I have no explanation one way or the other for the things he is alleging here, but these facts have to come out. Obviously, the member has a point to make; presumably, it is that the former minister received some benefit for it. The member should take that information to the committee and put forward his proposition or charge in the appropriate place.

Mr. Gillies: First the Premier says he did not own the shares, then that he cannot control them, and then that he will not benefit from them.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brandt: We fully intend to bring these matters before the committee, but why has the Premier, in advance of the committee hearings, already cast a shadow of doubt on their validity by indicating it does not matter one whit what comes out of those hearings, he intends to reappoint this man to the cabinet irrespective of what information, what evidence, what truth comes out in those hearings? How can the Premier possibly take that position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think I took that position. As the member knows, a number of allegations have been made. We were discussing in this House the point of the escrowed shares, and I acknowledged in this House and in other places that there is clearly a technical violation. There is an explanation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting that the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) was castigating the third party for making noise when he was speaking. He may want to speak to his own colleagues and use some of the same adjectives. I am trying to give the honourable member an explanation for this.

I said at that time I acknowledged a technical violation in that respect. It was a grey area. On the basis of the facts as I knew them, I laid forward my view of the situation. If the member has other information -- and every day he is trying to make new charges in the House, which is his right to do -- I recommend he take all this information to the committee and try to establish his point that the minister benefited from his position. The member may have evidence of that. He may have new facts that will come to bear on the situation, and I will have to govern myself accordingly.

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier on this subject. With due respect to my colleague Gumshoe Brandt, the information being provided to the House would hardly be difficult for a process of cross-examination and fairly persistent review of public sources to disclose.

Can the Premier explain why he continues to come into the House from day to day and be surprised by the presentation of information that would have been clearly available to him on the basis of the cross-examination he has publicly stated on a number of occasions his cabinet had to go through? No stone was left unturned, according to the Kingston Whig-Standard.

According to all the sources, the Premier has stated very clearly how tough the process was. How can he explain his failure to gather very basic information, which is publicly available, with respect to the disposal of assets by a cabinet minister?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, the honourable member points to either my inadequacy or an inadequacy of the system, and I acknowledge that now. Perhaps if we had tighter crossexamination of the members and a more extensive and rigorous situation, reminding them of some things that might have slipped their memory at that point, we might have avoided these situations. The amount of money is not significant in any of these cases. Obviously no one joining the executive council wants to walk into such a situation overtly.

The honourable member points out some flaws in the system, for which I have to take some responsibility. I wish we had done better a year ago. I hope that with our study of this situation, through Mr. Aird and others, we will have an opportunity to develop a system so this never happens again. I do not think any minister in his or her mind was attempting in any way to beat the system, but somehow or other it appears mistakes were made. It would have been in everyone's interest to have had this cleared up a year ago. I hope we can develop a system so this will never happen again.

Mr. Rae: Given the number of mistakes, it is hard to understand why the Premier was boasting last week that regardless of what happens after August 14, René Fontaine will be back in the cabinet. That is a statement that is hard for us to accept.

If it can be established that Mr. Fontaine told Paul Martin, president of Golden Tiger, that he was personally reluctant to sell the shares -- Mr. Martin has stated to a reporter that he had to convince Mr. Fontaine the shares should be sold -- and if it can be demonstrated that the value of the shares went up precisely because Mr. Fontaine delayed selling them, will the Premier still persist in saying Mr. Fontaine should be automatically reappointed on August 15?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The answer to the member is no, if there are new facts in the circumstances. With the facts as I ascertained them to be a week or so ago on the basis of the escrowed shares, I acknowledged there was a technical mistake, as I saw it, but one that in my judgement, and the member can disagree with this, should not send him out of the cabinet for ever.

If the member and others have presented new information subsequent to that, it is obvious I have to take all that information under advisement when I make any decisions I have to make. Old Gumshoe over there may want to present more information. Obviously, they are expending the full extent of the intellectual energy of the Conservative Party in trying to determine these things, and they have every right to present this information today.

Mr. Rae: Another comment Mr. Fontaine has made on more than one occasion, and he made this statement soon after his appointment to the cabinet, is that in his judgement the conflict-of interest guidelines were, as he put it, "too strict, too tight, too tough." It has never been clear to me from the Premier's statement whether, as a result of Mr. Aird's survey, he wants to see guidelines or a law -- I am not sure which is his preference -- that would be tighter or looser. Can the Premier tell us whether he wants to see guidelines and laws that are stricter, tougher and more clearly enforceable or whether he wants to see something that is much looser and will allow the kind of thing that has gone on to persist?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I want to see them clearer. Personally, and again I am seeking independent advice on this matter, I would like to see an independent authority to advise and adjudicate on these matters, to do the kind of cross-examination the member was talking about. I think all of us in public life pay a price. That is one of the realities, and it is a price well worth paying for public service.

We have to look at our own situation. We may want to look at the executive council, spouses, children and families. I notice in the newspaper today that some of the members opposite, such as Old Gumshoe, think all members of this House should be involved in disclosure of some type of other; all these things should be included. First, we need certainty, as the member and anyone who has read those conflict-of-interest guidelines will know. Again, I take responsibility for not having brought more precision to this whole matter. We want precision and independent adjudication that we can all agree is what the party leaders and all members of this House want. Ontario should be in the forefront.

With respect to the third point as to whether it should be in law, I would be happy to see it in law and not just a vague set of conflict-of-interest guidelines with no ongoing monitoring and no enforcement. I would be happy to see it as the law of the land. That would make everybody's life easier and is something I hope we do.

Mr. Rae: One of the things we would like to see is certainty of enforcement. That is not a problem with the guidelines; that is a problem of political will.

2:50 p.m.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier another question. It is our understanding that the Premier will be in Sault Ste. Marie tomorrow with a number of his colleagues. The Premier will know that, a 2.8 per cent layoff of the Sault work force is the equivalent of 51,500 jobs being lost in Toronto. It is difficult to convey to the magnitude of people in southern Ontario the crisis that is facing the north.

Can the Premier give us an assurance that in whatever he says tomorrow, it will include at least a transfer of capital resources to the north and, in particular, the establishment of a northern Ontario fund, which would inject capital on a regular basis, drawing funds from those companies that have historically made so much money from the north? Will we finally get some assurance that those funds will be reinvested in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member will be aware that the doubling of the northern development fund has already been announced, although the member may not think it is adequate.

There is no issue that has been more troubling to this government than the problems we are all aware of in northern Ontario. I repeat that some extremely fine work was done with constructive ideas through a number of the colleagues here in the House. We value that advice.

As has been a matter of public record for some time, we will be in Sault Ste. Marie tomorrow to discuss some approaches to solving the problem as well as some specifics. I do not want to mislead my friend and have him think I go with a magic wand with all the answers to the problems, because I do not have them. There are enormous problems in the steel industry and in the timber industry. There are a number of specific hot spots, as he knows. We are very concerned about the ongoing viability of the north.

We take two approaches to the situation. First, if we do not address the structural problems and the competitive problems, it is impossible to subsidize the situation for ever and ever. Second, we need a number of short-term responses that will address some of the specific problems. They have to go hand in hand. That is the approach we take.

We have gleaned a lot of wisdom from Mr. Rosehart. We will be moving on some of his ideas with members of this House, and others will be followed up in the future. Again, I do not want to mislead my honourable friend into thinking I have all the solutions, but we have some approaches that will be significant in the long term.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier tell us whether he has accepted the argument of the Rosehart report that at least there should be a health care facility in northern Ontario, in particular a medical school to ensure we will start reinvesting our human resources as well as our capital resources in northern Ontario, like many other jurisdictions in the world with which we share a significant north? Can he tell us whether that will be part of his announcement tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The point the honourable member makes about making sure we have opportunities and invest in human resources in northern Ontario is significant. I know the member will forgive me if I do not tell him today what we will be announcing tomorrow. He would not want me to give him advance notice of this type of situation.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: He would? I am surprised he would want me to do that.

As I say, we are announcing a number of approaches and there will be more forthcoming.

May I say in follow-up that this is one area where there has been remarkable co-operation among the members of this House. I think we all see it the same way, and specific work done by a number of members deserves the credit of all of us in this House.

Mr. Rae: Since the Premier said there will be an announcement tomorrow that will deal with the short term as well as the long term, can he at least give us the assurance that the government has recognized that the same private sector, in particular the multinational, big-business private sector, which historically has gleaned such a profitable history of exploiting the resources of the north, at least will be required to reinvest resources today in northern Ontario?

Can he at least give us the assurance that Sault Ste. Marie, Ear Falls, Wawa and those other communities that are being affected by layoffs and closures will be compensated by means of community adjustment funds which will be reinvested in those communities? Can he give us the assurance that we will see a transfer of capital back to the north, controlled by the north, to stop this pattern of exploiting and running, which has hurt the northern economy so terribly over the past number of years?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Without debating the methodology, there are a number of those approaches inherent in our approach and a number of those ideas. We will be diverting funds that one can argue have historically been taken from the north and invested in the south; a much higher proportion than has ever been spent in the north will be spent back there.

We could get into a historical argument about who took from whom in the past, but there is one difference between this government's approach and my honourable friend's approach. We are not looking for enemies, and we are not looking to pillory or to blame people for this problem, whether it be individuals, unions, industry or multinationals. What we are looking for is a new, co-operative approach to the problems. We are all in this thing together; every one of us in this House, everyone in northern Ontario and everyone in this great province.

That is the approach we are going to be taking, and I think the member will find it is somewhat satisfactory, although I am sure he will argue tomorrow that it is not enough. No matter what I said, he would argue it was not enough, and that is fair enough, but I think he can be assured of our goodwill and good faith to solve these problems together in the long term, not just in the short term.

Mr. Pope: The doctors would like to hear that.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Premier based on testimony before the standing committee on public accounts last Wednesday evening. During that session, Mary Eberts testified that in June 1985, information was gathered from all cabinet ministers or potential cabinet ministers with respect to their holdings and interests in private and public corporations.

Can the Premier table that information today with respect to the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am not sure I am following the honourable member's question. I understand that has been tabled with all its flaws in it.

Mr. Pope: I will repeat the question to the Premier.

Last Wednesday, Mary Eberts testified she had obtained information in written form with respect to the holdings in public and private corporations of all ministers or prospective cabinet ministers, and the following day she indicated that the only copy was now lodged in the Premier's office.

Can the Premier table today those documents, not the declarations given through Blenus Wright but the declarations and information the Premier had in his hands on June 26? Since he has that information in his office, can he table it with the House today with respect to the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As far as I know, all the appropriate and relevant information has been filed as required under the law. If there are mistakes in that or if the member has extra information, he should ask those questions of the appropriate people in the circumstances. As far as I know, it has all been filed.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Reville: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. There has been a lot of righteous talk from this government about its interest in protecting affordable rental housing. There is mounting evidence, day by day, that the government has failed abysmally to provide that protection. What has the minister to say to Mrs. Marjorie Chapman, aged 86, who was told by the courts this Friday that she would have to leave her lifelong home?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is very unfortunate when we have tenants who are losing their homes. I sympathize very much with their situation. On the other hand, the honourable member knows full well the action we have taken as a government to introduce Bill 11 and to have it enacted to protect tenants who are faced with evictions caused by extensive renovation and by demolition. We are very concerned about that, and that is why Bill 11 is here. We hoped both opposition parties would move swiftly to debate Bill 11, but the approach they have taken is that there seems to be delay still and tenants may be facing these situations.

3 p.m.

Mr. Reville: That will not do. It is the government's responsibility to organize the agenda, and this government has sentenced thousands of tenants to a long, hot summer in a cold sweat.

There is an alternative. Given that the minister has repeatedly said it was his government's intention that Bill 11 would be in force by now, will he abandon his stubborn refusal to make the bill retroactive and commit his government clearly and unequivocally to making Bill 11 retroactive to protect tenants who are even now losing their homes?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The debate on the doctors' bill took a considerable amount of time and patience. Bill 11 came to the House on May 2. We hoped Bill 94 on extra billing would proceed quickly so we would have Bill 11 here. I am prepared to stay in this House as long as possible to have Bill 11 enacted, so we can protect all tenants who are faced with eviction from their homes.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Reycraft: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food and relates to a matter that was raised earlier this afternoon during members' statements by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). It results from a telephone call I received this morning from Reeve Jack Moir of London-Middlesex.

Reeve Moir informed me that Law Insurance Brokers, a firm that has provided liability insurance coverage for many of the small rural fairs in this province, has advised the Ilderton Agricultural Society that it will be unable to renew the society's insurance policy, which expires on August 1. Can the minister inform us what steps his ministry is taking in addressing the insurance problems that face fair boards across this province?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Since this problem first surfaced, I am pleased to report the staff of the rural organizations and services branch of my ministry have been working closely with the fair boards and the insurance companies. The insurance companies, acting on behalf of the fair boards, made application to the liability insurance pool. It is my understanding that the pool has definitely indicated it will give liability coverage to all the fair boards that require it.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) for the assistance he has rendered in this regard.

Mr. Reycraft: I am delighted to hear fair boards will be able to receive liability insurance, as I hope the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe), who indicated his lack of concern about the small rural fairs in this province, is as well. However, I am concerned about the affordability of this liability insurance. I wonder if the minister can tell us what the agricultural societies may expect to have to pay for insurance this summer.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The liability insurance pool has divided the fairs into three classes: large, medium and small. I am pleased to say coverage will be given to them at a most reasonable premium. They will receive $1 million in liability insurance for a premium that ranges between $500 and $1,000, and the fair boards will be notified -- I think within this week -- what their coverage will cost.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have some information I want to pass on to the Premier, if I can get a page.

Mr. Speaker: By way of question?

Mr. Brandt: By way of question to the Premier, last Thursday I raised with the Premier the issue of an article that appeared in the Kapuskasing Northern Times. He indicated he was not a regular reader of the Northern Times; so I have provided him with a copy at no charge.

That newspaper article indicates that the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines was quoted as saying his resignation would take place if Hearst did not receive a forest management agreement. Close to a week, or at least a number of days have passed since I raised this question. Has the Premier talked to the minister --

An hon. member: Former minister.

Mr. Brandt: -- the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines and confirmed whether he resigned because of not receiving the FMA, or did he resign out of honour, as the Premier stated in this House?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: To the best of my knowledge, he clearly resigned because of the charges made in this House with respect to Golden Tiger.

Mr. Brandt: The question specifically was, did the Premier talk to Mr. Fontaine about this matter? In addressing that first question, can the Premier also respond to the question as to the present status of the FMA for the Hearst area? I do not want to know the confidential details of the cabinet discussion, but whether or not that matter has been dealt with, whether any decision will be forthcoming and, if so, when?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I did speak to him on Friday last. It was my clear impression, as I told the honourable member, that he resigned because of the charges made in this House on the mining shares. That is the answer to the member's first question.

The second answer, with respect to the FMA, is the following: That FMA has been discussed in the Hearst area for some two, three or four years. The former Minister of Natural Resources would know that. I gather it is a joint FMA. Several companies are involved and the concern involves the entire region.

We also know, and this House will be aware, of the controversy that surrounded the former minister in the last while. Suggestions were made here in the House and elsewhere. Whatever decision the cabinet made on that matter would be suspect. The member, with his new research arm, would be the first to suspect that something untoward was being done in this matter. It is not a secret that the former minister has an interest in United Sawmill, which is under a blind trust, but that still would not prevent a suspicious mind like the member's own --

Mr. Brandt: Or many others besides.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: -- or that of many others from suggesting that something was untoward. I know he will want to talk to the former Minister of Natural Resources, who may have a different view of the situation. That is why, because of the unique atmosphere that has applied to this, it is the view of the government that we should have completely independent advice on this matter. That is the course the government will take.

EXTENDICARE LONDON NURSING HOME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Health, who will have had an opportunity by now to review the recommendations of the coroner's inquest into the 19 deaths at the Extendicare London Nursing Home. I would like to know if, after reviewing the procedures and the recommendations, the minister is satisfied, with all of the conflicting information, whether doctors informed the Minister of Health, whether the staff doctor informed the local medical officer of health, whether the minister is satisfied that this issue has been sufficiently dealt with and whether he is prepared to recommend a public inquiry into this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As the honourable gentleman indicates, I have reviewed the initial release of information and the recommendations from the jury. As he knows, the final form of the official results of the coroner's inquest has not yet been brought to my ministry's attention. We are making inquiries to find out exactly when the final-form recommendations will be delivered to us.

One of the items that constantly came out in the proceedings, which I watched with great interest and in which my ministry was active, was that there were communication difficulties that led to confusion. In the interim, some of the steps we have taken with respect to reporting have helped already to address some of those deficiencies in communication. At this stage, I have not looked at putting together a public inquiry with respect to a follow-up of the coroner's inquest.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not just a matter of confusion or lack of communication. It is that the facts are not entirely clear in this case either. Is the minister aware that in one of the conflicting pieces of testimony, Dr. Michael Hickey, who is the consulting physician to Extendicare London, reported that he did not even know an outbreak had taken place several days after the outbreak had started and that he learned about it by making his rounds in one of the local hospitals?

3:10 p.m.

At the same time, the director of nursing reported that she had told the doctor that the medical officer of health said there was no use in reporting this matter to the Ministry of Health because in past cases it did not care. Does the minister not understand that if this tragedy had involved any other group of people in our society, there would have been a more substantial response from the Legislature and from the Minister of Health? Should we not now be setting up a public inquiry to determine what caused this, what the circumstances were and who was responsible?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I told the honourable gentleman before, I have not determined that a public inquiry would assist us to any large degree. We have not yet got the final text of the coroner's inquest report.

However, the concerns raised about the communications were well reported and well documented. They had caused me concern even at the time of the inquest, or at least of the deaths and incidents that occurred. We took steps right away to ensure that one of the first places that the reports were made was to the nursing homes and the public health branches of the Ministry of Health, so that our chief medical officer of health could respond at the initial phases of these events.

We have made sure that has occurred. It now is working well in events that have transpired since the Extendicare problem. Those difficulties have resulted in our tightening up our communications and tightening up the way in which the Ministry of Health works with local medical officers of health and other people who are required to respond first to these events.

I can tell the honourable gentleman again that I have not determined that a public inquiry at this stage would assist us in unravelling any further the information which seems to have caused concern about who was communicating what to whom. However, I think our new communication directives have assisted.

PRISON FACILITIES

Mr. Callahan: I am not certain that this question should be directed to the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) or to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Perhaps I can start with the Minister of Correctional Services and, if he feels it appropriate, he can refer it to the Attorney General.

Over the last little while, we have witnessed reports of overcrowding in jails because of the introduction of the Young Offenders Act and its implications. I would like to ask the Minister of Correctional Services whether the diversion program that is available under the Young Offenders Act has been implemented on a pilot basis or if there is an intention of bringing it forward as an alternative to avoid the overcrowding of our jails.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am aware of one diversion program in particular that has worked quite effectively in my own riding of Kingston and the Islands. It is not paid for by the provincial government but rather by another organization that is experimenting with alternatives to incarceration.

The issue is one which deserves fair merit and study by the government. I personally believe it will be an excellent way to help reduce some of the population in our penal institutions.

Mr. Callahan: Have any reports been done on any other province where this program has been introduced to determine whether it has had a significant impact on reducing the jail population?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am not aware of those studies, although they may very well have been done. I will attempt to find an answer to that through my ministry and report back, unless the Attorney General's office does happen to have that information. I will make it my responsibility to get an answer back.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Harris: I have a couple of points I would like to raise with the Premier. Can he inform the House of any discussions either he or his office has had with Mr. Fontaine regarding any special severance arrangements during this hiatus?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) tells me that apparently when one resigns there is half a year's pay coming, but the former member has declined that.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Is that what the member means?

Mr. Harris: The question was whether the Premier has had any discussions. I gather he has not. Perhaps the Treasurer has.

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer has not? How come he coached the Premier and he gave his answer?

Mr. Wildman: Edgar Bergen.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: Certainly I do. I am trying to determine whether we have an answer to the question. Has he had any discussions? I gather he has not and I gather the Treasurer has not.

When the Premier indicated he did have discussions on --

Interjection.

Mr. Harris: Thank you. We are running short of funds to send these over.

The Premier did have discussions on Friday with the former minister. In those discussions on Friday, did the former minister deny saying, "I had said that if Hearst did not get this FMA, I would resign"?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is right. That is not his recollection at all, but the member will want to ask him about this at the committee, I am sure.

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. There have been a number of articles published with respect to Mr. Fontaine, one of them by a reporter who taped a conversation with Mr. Martin, who is president of Golden Tiger. Mr. Martin is quoted as saying, referring to the shares: "I forced him to sell them. He did not want to." The reporter asked why. Mr. Martin responded: "He thought they would go up in price. I told him, `René, you are a minister; you have to sell them.'"

Can the Premier find an explanation for the delay from July to December in the decision to sell the shares? Does he consider that delay to be another example of what he has called a "technical violation," when the guidelines state very clearly that all matters with respect to a blind trust are supposed to be resolved within a month of a minister assuming office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: As I understand it, the filing is to be within six months after the original date.

I know of no reason this matter should not be investigated. The member has asked me some questions that I think need scrutiny conversations with Mr. Martin and what they talked about. Anything the member wants to know should be asked about. I am not in a position to explain things one way or the other.

Mr. Rae: Will the Premier be willing to appear before the committee and advise the House precisely what the ballyhoo was all about with respect to conflict of interest when he assumed office, what kinds of information were made available and why something as fundamental as this was not resolved? Can the Premier not confirm that the guidelines are quite specific and refer to the fact that these matters with respect to a blind trust should be cleared up as soon as possible upon the assumption of office?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am happy to share whatever knowledge I have of the situation. As well as Mr. Wright, a lawyer was acting on the matter. They looked at a number of these complicated situations and gave their judgement on the matters. The member has every right to know what judgements I received. I did not personally cross-examine each minister of the crown. I turned it over to others to find out whether there was any violation of the conflict of-interest guidelines.

The member will be aware that a variety of them got advice from other people. He may not agree with the advice they got. That speaks to the essential vagueness of some of these guidelines. I am happy to share what information I have on this matter. This entire matter should be scrutinized, and the member can put his questions forward.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Gregory: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Queen's Park sources have been quoted as saying that the Urban Transportation Development Corp. sale will be finalized in the next two weeks. They have also said that substantial changes will be written into the final deal with Lavalin. Can the minister assure this House and the taxpayers of this province that they will see a return on their $167-million investment in the once-prosperous corporation and that they will not be left holding only substantial liabilities because of a bad business, fire-sale deal made in haste by the Liberal government?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: It is very difficult to respond to an unattributed Queen's Park source. There is no fire sale. We are proceeding as quickly as we are able. It is a very complicated procedure, as the honourable member well knows. We are doing everything we can to retain Canadian content, jobs, research and development, and all of the principles we established some time ago.

Mr. Gregory: I appreciate the minister is confused. When I refer to "a reliable government source," that is a paradox right off the bat. The Liberal government has continually branded the UTDC as a white elephant. It has become increasingly obvious that through mismanagement and incompetence the Liberal government is making true on its accusations. The sale is past the point of salvaging. Will the minister assure us that he will negotiate a fair and reasonable price for this crown corporation and that he will not just give it away like a door prize at a school dance?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Because the principals from Lavalin are still negotiating, it is hardly past the point of no return, as the, member suggests. Of course, we are doing everything possible to get the taxpayers of Ontario a fair deal.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Energy. In 1978, the Porter royal commission called for a complete study of nuclear safety in Ontario that would be independent of Ontario Hydro, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. and the Atomic Energy Control Board. In 1980, the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, of which he was a member, called for the same kind of independent study. Last Thursday the select committee on energy, for a third time, called for an independent study of nuclear safety in Ontario by internationally recognized experts. Is the minister now prepared to commit himself to seeing that study done?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am very pleased with the excellent report by the committee. As the honourable member has pointed out, that issue has been raised on more than one occasion. I have not made a decision yet, but I share with the member that this is one of the very important issues we will be dealing with in the next short while. I tend to feel that we will meet that commitment, but I have to have the rationale and do a bit of study before I can make a promise and share with the House the direction in which we can go and whether it should be done by another tribunal to assure the member and all the people of Ontario that we are concerned about nuclear safety.

Mr. Charlton: Can the minister give us an indication as to when he will respond to the report and to that specific recommendation? Can he assure us that the two opposition parties will be consulted about any independent study he decides to proceed with?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes. I will undertake that we will share with all members of this House the initiative we will take to confirm the recommendation by the committee.

VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It arises from the estimates, July 3, 1986, when the deputy minister acknowledged there were severe problems with the waiting lists surrounding the vocational rehabilitation services for the handicapped. He stated the following: "Typically, we are looking at about 11 to 19 or 20 weeks. We go up to 50 weeks, which is not good enough. We are talking about almost half a year to a year for some people who are on the vocational rehabilitating scheme to receive assistance." Will he tell this House what plans he has with respect to revising the VRS program?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As the honourable member will recall, there was a statement in the recent budget that additional funds had been allocated to my ministry for the physically disabled. That is part of the resources we will be applying to the situation he described. I remind the member, as he has already been reminded, that a number of people on the waiting list are simply waiting to get into another program. They have been served as far as they can be served by our vocational rehabilitation officers and are waiting to get into a program that has already been agreed on. It is not always a case of waiting to be seen, but rather of waiting to get into a program.

Mr. Cousens: We do not want to sidestep the issue. We know there are extenuating circumstances in some cases, and yet circumstances in others are leading people to a dead end when the service is not there for them to get direction and assistance from these government offices. Will the minister take this under personal consideration and promise to do something about it? The deputy needs his help.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There is no question about agreement between my deputy and me about where the shortcomings are. The member referred to one incident in the province where there was a very long waiting list. The deputy and I discussed that shortly after we discovered it, contacted our area office and asked that two VRS officers from the area office be transferred to that location to help cut down that waiting list. In another place in northern Ontario, we have hired two additional people for a similar situation. We are aware of it, we are working on it and there is no disagreement between us.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr. McClellan: I have a question of the Minister of Labour with respect to the practices of the Workers' Compensation Board at the Downsview rehabilitation centre. Is it customary for injured workers to be discharged from the centre with a medical diagnosis of "fit for regular work," when they have never been examined by a physician prior to the discharge? The reason for the discharge was that they were handing out copies of an article that was published in the Toronto Star.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Obviously, the honourable member has a specific instance in mind. I would like to be made aware of that. I do not think any injured worker would be discharged as being fit to return to regular work without being fully examined and without it being determined that he or she is fit to return to regular duty or to any modified or light duty.

Mr. McClellan: I find it difficult that the chairman of the board has not brought to the attention of the minister the case of two registered nurses, Ms. Fallis and Ms. Kelly, who on June 4, after complaining about the inadequacy of the rehabilitation program and having distributed copies of an article that had appeared in the Toronto Star, were told on June 5 by the cashier that they were going to be discharged. On the following day they were told by Dr. Paisley, one of the staff doctors at the centre, they were going to be discharged for the medical reason, as I understand it, that they were handing out an article that was published in the Toronto Star.

Will the minister report on this incident and advise the House what action he intends to take against physicians who give a medical diagnosis on the basis of a political criterion?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will be most pleased to take that question as notice and to get a report for the member and for the House as quickly as possible.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. One of his election promises found its way into the speech from the throne. Specifically, I am referring to the promise to introduce beer and wine sales in corner stores. Will the minister advise the House of his current timetable for that legislation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The decision on when legislation is introduced is in the hands of the House leaders. We will get to it when we can.

Mr. Jackson: On June 25, a community forum on this subject was held in the riding of Burlington South. We were unable to obtain a speaker from any section of the government. We tried the office of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and we even tried the office of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini), but no one was willing to talk about this legislation.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member has a supplementary.

Mr. Jackson: I am getting to it.

Mr. Speaker: Good.

Mr. Jackson: Since the minister is unwilling to come to Burlington to give his side of the story, the citizens of Burlington want him to watch and listen to a tape of the proceedings that evening. I will send that over with one of the pages.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Jackson: My supplementary question

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked the minister to watch the tape.

Mr. Jackson: I asked to give the tape to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: I misunderstood you. Place your question quickly.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Jackson: If the minister is unwilling to come to Burlington or to talk in any public forum, will he now admit that he has given a sober second thought to this issue and agrees it is bad legislation and that he will withdraw any plans for introducing the bill?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I tell the member, without bragging, that I go practically anywhere I am invited. I want to give some statistics to my honourable friends opposite. In the 12 months prior to my assumption of the portfolio, there were four ministers, two of whom were the same person. In that time, they addressed fewer than 12 groups. In eight months, I addressed 70 groups. To suggest I am not available does not make any sense. I would be delighted to debate the question any time, anywhere, as long as it can be scheduled.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: It is unfair that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations starts talking about his speaking engagements on behalf of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have a petition from the employees of Zehrs Market, Frederick Street Plaza, Kitchener, who have lots of information about the proposed legislation. This petition indicates that the 46 signatories understand the Ontario government plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wines in Ontario corner stores and that they have read reports this may be confined to so-called independent stores.

They wish to express their objection to any legislation that would exclude them and their place of employment from the opportunity to sell to their customers any products simply because they are not a so-called independent store. They indicate that this practice would discriminate against their customers who choose to shop there of their free choice for reasons which they believe they have contributed to, that the practice would discriminate against them by encouraging their customers to shop elsewhere and that they believe they work hard and conscientiously for their customers and intend to do so for beer and wine as well as for any other products they sell, including many strictly regulated products. They object to any government action that jeopardizes their jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice.

They believe they have earned the right to be respected in the way they so work and they demand that, if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, their grocery store be given the same permission.

Mr. Harris: I have a petition from North Bay Food City employees, Local 715, at 1899 Algonquin Avenue, North Bay. It is signed by about 150 people and states:

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

"We understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit sale of some beers and wine in Ontario grocery stores. We have also read reports that this may be confined to so-called independent stores.

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you, as our elected representatives, to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store.

"This practice would discriminate against our customers who choose to shop here of their free choice for reasons we believe we have contributed to. This practice would discriminate against us by encouraging our customers to shop elsewhere. We believe we work hard and conscientiously for our customers and intend to do so for beer and wine as well as for any other products we sell, including many strictly regulated products. We object to any government action which jeopardizes our jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice.

"We believe we have earned the right to be respected for the way we do our work. We demand that, if legislation is passed permitting beer and wine to be sold in grocery stores, our grocery store be given the same permission."

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I have a petition similar to the ones presented by the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) and the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris).

On behalf of 44 employees of Zehrs Markets of Bolton, I too would like to table this petition.

Mr. Jackson: I have similar petitions from four groups representing the IGA on Elizabeth Street, the IGA on Guelph Line, the Loblaws No Frills on Brant Street and the Miracle Food Mart on Fairview Street, all in Burlington; these are well in excess of 100 signatures. They state:

"We, the undersigned, wish to express our objection to you, as our elected representative, to any legislation which would exclude us and our place of employment from the opportunity to sell our customers any products simply because we are not a so-called independent store.

"This practice would discriminate against our customers who choose to shop here of their free choice for reasons we believe we have contributed to. This practice would discriminate against us by encouraging our customers to shop elsewhere. We believe we work hard and conscientiously for our consumers and intend to do so for beer and wine as well as for any other products we sell, including many strictly regulated products. We object to any government action which jeopardizes our jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice."

Mr. Morin: I have a petition from the employees of Loblaws Supermarkets Ltd. store 47, located at 900 Greenbank Road, Barrhaven, Ottawa.

These employees are objecting to the government of Ontario's plan to introduce legislation to permit the sale of beer and wine in independent stores only.

Mr. Treleaven: I wish to present a petition with the same wording as the first seven petitions this afternoon, from 21 employees of Zehrs Markets, Ingersoll, and 43 employees of 738 Woodstock Food City in Woodstock.

SCHOOL BUSING

Mr. Hennessy: I have a petition for the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway), signed by 542 residents and children attending Agnew Johnson, Heath Park, Queen Elizabeth, St. James, Sherbrooke and Hyde Park-Kingsway schools. The children are in kindergarten classes, and the bus service has been withdrawn within 1.6 kilometres of the schools.

Taxpayers and parents feel this could create extreme hardship in the winter months, especially for the children and parents. They would greatly appreciate if the minister would look into this matter to see whether something could be done as soon as possible.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Rowe: I have a petition presented to the Lieutenant Governor from approximately 400 parishioners of Essa Road Presbyterian Church in Barrie, Westminster Presbyterian Church in Barrie, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church in Barrie and Knox Presbyterian Church in Craighurst. These parishioners are opposed to the wide-open sale of goods in retail stores on Sundays.

Mr. McCague: I have a petition similar to that of the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) from parishioners of Jubilee Presbyterian Church in Stayner.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet today following routine proceedings and from 8 to 10:30 p.m., and in the morning, following routine proceedings and from 8 to 10:30 p.m. of Tuesday, July 8, and Wednesday, July 9, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Gregory be substituted for Mr. Gordon on the standing committee on public accounts.

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.

3:40 p.m.

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Wednesday, July 9, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT

Mr. Cousens moved first reading of Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

TOBACCO SALE REGULATION ACT

Mr. D. S. Cooke moved first reading of Bill 118, An Act to regulate the Advertising and Sale of Tobacco.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: This bill bans tobacco advertising and requires that tobacco to be sold to a consumer be labelled in the prescribed manner and that persons who sell tobacco be licensed to do so. In addition to imposing fines for contravention of the act, the bill would permit cancellation of the licence of a person who sells tobacco to a person under the age of 16 years.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CLERK OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved resolution 7:

That this House express its appreciation to Roderick Lewis for his dedication and years of service as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly; and that, notwithstanding the customs of Parliament, the Clerk be invited to address the House.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very honoured and delighted to move the notice of motion. I would like to make a few comments before the motion is put, and I await with a great deal of interest the comments that might be made to the House by the Clerk.

Probably more than any other member currently here or in the history of the House, he has had the pleasure of listening to the extensive debate over the years as it has gone back and forth on any number of subjects that could be contemplated. Because of his special responsibilities, during all those years he could not participate in any way.

He and his father, who was his predecessor in this important office, had as their main responsibility to facilitate the democratic business of this House, to advise directly Mr. Speaker and the other officers of the House and to be available to extend to any member who approached them their best advice.

A private member for many years and now a minister of the crown, I am prepared to give my testimony that Mr. Lewis has always been readily available to provide that advice, both to members of the government and to any individual in any of the parties. For this, we have valued his judgement and extensive experience.

We should be aware that not only this House but also other Houses in the legislative assemblies across Canada and in the Parliament of Canada, as well as legislatures in the Commonwealth, have availed themselves of his advice when something out of the ordinary came forward or they wanted the experience of this long-serving Clerk to assist them in perhaps their inaugural years as newly formed legislatures in the Commonwealth. We are very proud that this House has been able to support him in those efforts and to add our words of congratulations to those which have come from other jurisdictions as he ends a lengthy career of service as our Clerk.

I believe it was almost exactly 60 years ago when Mr. Lewis's father, a former member of this assembly, took up his responsibilities as Clerk of the Legislature. Upon extensive research on the matter, I am told that Mr. Lewis himself came into the chamber as an observer 66 years ago. I am not sure that all those years were accompanied by as careful attention to the debate that was a part of the experience during his many years as Clerk, but it is interesting to note that even as a lad he was interested in the work of this chamber and this Legislature.

It was just after being called to the bar in 1939 that Mr. Lewis became a member of the public service of Ontario, working in the succession duty branch of what would now be the Ministry of Revenue but which was then associated with the Treasury. We should recall that there was a time when succession duties were the principal source of revenue in the province, although they were not quite that important in those particular years.

When war was declared, he took the responsibility of military service with the Royal Canadian Navy. It was unfortunate that following his service, he was left with arthritis to the extent that he had to enter military hospital for a period at the conclusion of the war. Immediately following that, he was invited to become First Clerk Assistant, that is, assistant to his father, Alex C. Lewis, who was Clerk of the Legislature in 1946. During that long period of service, his experience in this House and his encyclopaedic knowledge of the judgements rendered by various Speakers, often with the advice of Mr. Lewis himself or his father, have been considered extremely valuable by this House and other legislatures.

During the period, even in the relatively brief time I have been a member here, the work of the House has changed dramatically. The orders of the day, for example, have been much improved so that individual members can find at a glance what the specific work is on a day-to-day basis, and all the reporting forms from the Legislature have been improved and clarified to the extent that once again, with Mr. Lewis's guidance and leadership, this House is a model in the British tradition.

I also want to speak briefly of his ancillary responsibilities as chief electoral officer. This is the way I got to know Mr. Lewis first, since I came here in a by-election when it was necessary to contact the chief electoral officer's headquarters for guidance. It should be pointed out that he served without additional emolument. I am not at all sure we should not have a special pay bill to make up for that, for all those servants of the Legislature who have had more than one duty over the years as government has expanded and progressed.

Mr. Lewis has listened to the debates. He has never indicated, in any way that I could discern, any particular side to the debate, but he has indicated in his advice to the Speaker, in this and in previous governments, that it is his job to see that we are well advised on the rules and to give every honourable member an opportunity to express his or her views on the issues of the day. That is why we are here, and the Clerk has repeatedly shown his commitment to that as the first responsibility, to make this House work and to make it work democratically.

3:50 p.m.

During all those times, he has not been able to respond, as individual members can, showing support or objections, sometimes exasperation, or any of those human responses. That is why I felt it was particularly appropriate to ask Mr. Lewis to address the Legislature at the appropriate time so we might know some of his views in a formal way. I think it is also appropriate that Hansard should contain, along with the views expressed by the honourable members, the words of the Clerk himself. This is a substantial departure as far as legislatures are concerned, but in these circumstances I think every member of this House will await his words anxiously.

On a personal basis, I have appreciated the advice that was always made available in an even-handed and fair way to everyone who approached the Clerk. In my duties as House leader for the government and in opposition, and as Leader of the Opposition and, for a brief period; as leader of the third party, good and independent advice was always available on the proper utilization of the rules. Without rules, democracy cannot function. On that basis, we know the Clerk has one of the most important responsibilities in this chamber.

Mr. Grossman: In rising to speak to this motion, I cannot help thinking that both the government House leader, who just spoke, and the Clerk share with me the distinction of following our fathers into this assembly. However, I must say I was somewhat surprised to realize the Grossman family were mere rookies when sized up against the Nixon and Lewis families in this House in that we arrived here only 31 years ago.

The government House leader and I share several other things. We have both served as government House leader, opposition House leader, Leader of the Opposition and Treasurer. I do not plan to share the other experience he had for a brief period of time.

Mr. Breaugh: Big treat for the member.

Mr. Rae: This too shall come.

Mr. McClellan: The member is going to love it.

Mr. Grossman: It sure looks like fun from here, but as I recall, it was more fun over there. Thanks anyway.

I have been watching the Clerk of the House for many years, since the day my father arrived in 1955. We have seen him here as the Legislature has grown and changed. When I first observed the assembly, and surely when the government House leader first observed it, the Legislature sat for a period of weeks. In the 1950s, it sat for as long as then Premier Frost thought was appropriate. He would deem it so at the start and tell everyone how long they would be here. Some thought he also told them how they would behave and what they would do while they were here, and that was the way it worked out.

Over the years, this assembly has grown to be the longest-sitting provincial assembly in the country, which is as it should be. Recently, it has expanded its rules dramatically and now is televised. The rules have changed dramatically over the years, but the leadership and guidance of the Clerk has remained constant.

There have been tumultuous times from time to time during that growth and expansion, but at all times all members of this House could observe the Clerk offering some advice, be it to a new Speaker of the House, to a new member of the House or to a new Premier. The Clerk's opinion was often sought by long-serving Premiers, leaders and House leaders, and he has been a single, consistent and reliable source of good common sense, parliamentary knowledge and tradition throughout.

The government House leader said a moment ago that we have all watched as the Clerk listened to all the speeches quietly and patiently, without showing any emotion whatever. I must say that is not my total recollection. I can remember the Clerk grimacing a twitch on some occasions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was his lunch.

Mr. Grossman: No, not at that hour of the day.

I can even remember him nodding his head. One did not know whether it was in sadness, disagreement or bewilderment, but it was always interesting to watch when that occurrence might befall the assembly. Of course, no Speaker has failed to see the silent advice offered from time to time; advice that was usually best followed, although I hope the Clerk has not been doing that too much recently. In any event, we have not been blaming him.

I only want to say to the Clerk as we prepare to hear his long-overdue address to this House, that people serve the institution, they visit it, they work in it and leave, but very few people over a period of years come to be representative of the institution they serve. Those persons are indeed very rare.

When one can serve an institution such as this, which has seen so many people come and go, with such public prominence in the heart and core and whirlwind of public controversy and yet see a circumstance where the Clerk himself, in the face of all those people coming through, has-at least as long as this member can remember-come himself to personalize, epitomize, embody and represent the institution that we all proudly serve, it is indeed a massive and important accomplishment.

There is nothing that will be a greater monument to the Clerk's service here and to the contribution he has made than to know that whenever any member who has served in the past many years here thinks of parliamentary procedure and the institution of the provincial parliament, he will almost automatically come to visualize and picture this Clerk of the House sitting at that table overseeing these procedures.

Mr. Rae: I know everyone is looking forward to hearing from Mr. Lewis. I want to say a couple of words in addition to those I was able to say on the day Mr. Lewis's retirement was announced to the House when we celebrated his 75th birthday. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) has said, we have seen a transformation of this assembly and of the Clerk's role over the past number of years from an assembly that sat regularly but for brief periods in an almost pastoral view of minimal government to one with all the advantages and disadvantages of the modern democratic assembly which sits for long periods.

Indeed, my introduction to this place occurred at the time we were debating wage and price controls, or wage controls as they were introduced in this province. Our caucus was responsible for keeping the assembly here longer than it had ever been here before.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is a shame.

Mr. Rae: The government House leader says it is a shame. He was saying that when he was the opposition critic. In fact, the opposition and the government were close in those days. It was an exciting and interesting time. There was an interesting occasion

Mr. Grossman: The member knows the feeling.

Mr. Rae: I do not know whether there was anything formal, but it was quite clear. In any event, it was a time for us. We were arguing about closure and the responsibilities of the Speaker and the rights of the assembly. Throughout that time, there was a sense that the history of this House was one that rested with one person who had a clear sense of the debates as they had taken place literally over half a century.

4 p.m.

The government House leader notwithstanding, it is a tribute not simply to the longevity of Mr. Lewis's service but also to its quality and its multipartisan nature that this House has been through many divisive debates but there was never occasion when there has been any question of the quality of the civil service, of which the Clerk is the senior member, to this assembly.

It has already been said by both the speakers today that the Clerk had the unique position of listening very carefully. I want to share my perception with the Leader of the Opposition. I can recall not simply grimacing but a rather vigorous shaking of the head. Perhaps I am more aware of that when I am speaking than when the Leader of the Opposition is speaking. Perhaps when he is speaking, the Clerk grimaces, but when I occasionally make a point that is out of line, it creates a reaction that is only natural and a healthy sign.

It is fair to say that all of us here will remember not simply the general quality of service but the very personal service the Clerk has given to each one of us. When I first got here, I was struck by the length of questions in comparison with those where I had done some of my training for this job, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, where the questions at that time were a little bit shorter and where the Speaker kept them very short.

I came here and found the questions were very long in comparison to what they had been in Ottawa. I commented on this in something I said in the House or somewhere else. Mr. Lewis came up to me and said, "You are very right and I hope you can get the House to agree with you." I am delighted to say I have managed to mix in very effectively with the longevity of the questions, rather than getting anybody else to change his practices.

I hope very much that the Clerk will have something not only to say today but to write. It would be a fascinating chance for those of us interested in the history of this place and the history of this province to hear from him his perspective on the performance of various people who have sat in this place during past years and his sense of the value, or not, of debate and the way in which we could improve the rules and the quality of the Legislature. I think the Clerk, having watched us all perform and having watched the system work or not work, as the case may be, has a lot to say on those subjects.

In addition to what he has to say today, I hope the Clerk will take the time to write this down. All of us have to be concerned about the public's reaction to the way in which Legislatures perform. As our work becomes more public, so does the observation of the public with respect to the workings of these assemblies become tougher.

I am reminded of the Donato cartoon I used to include in all my householder mailings when I was a federal member. It had a picture of a husband and wife in the kitchen, screaming to their children in the living room, "Stop that shouting, watch your language and please cut it out." The word came back from the living room, "It is not us; we have just got the House of Commons question period on the television."

The same comment might be made after our own experience with television in this place. No doubt that puts an onus on us all to reflect on how we can improve the work we do and the sense of public confidence in the work we do.

We are not engaged in an impersonal process here; it is a very personal one. We do work out of personal commitment. I simply want to thank Rod Lewis for the help he has given me as a member of this assembly. All of us will want to pay tribute to him personally in the days and weeks ahead and say how much we are looking forward to hearing from him, not only today but in the weeks and months ahead, as he has the opportunity to reflect a bit on the work and life that have been his in this wonderful province of ours.

Mr. Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few casual observations. I will start at the beginning when I was appointed to the position you now occupy. As the government House leader will recall, it was done rather hurriedly. It happened over the Easter weekend. I received a phone call and was told I would also receive a phone call shortly from the Clerk of the House, Mr. Lewis, which I did. He suggested I come up here on Easter Monday and there would be a tailor here, I would be measured and everything would be ready for Tuesday afternoon. Of course, it was not. Mr. Lewis appeared and I appeared, but I do not remember a tailor. At that time, Mr. Lewis and I were somewhat the same physical size, and Mr. Lewis over the years had accumulated a change of suits. He very kindly allowed me to wear his suits for many weeks, indeed months, until I received the proper attire.

Mr. Ashe: You have obviously gained weight.

Mr. Turner: No, I have not. He has lost weight.

Anyway, I have many fond recollections of my association with Mr. Lewis, both in this assembly and outside of it. As you no doubt are experiencing in the position you occupy, Mr. Speaker, you do take special note and have a special feeling for what goes on in this chamber and in this building. During my time as Speaker, Mr. Lewis was invaluable in a very personal way, in a way that included instruction and guidance on many matters pertaining to the procedures, not only in the House but also many other places.

I can always say that any advice he gave to me, other than that motion of moving the arm -- which I was tempted to shake if I could leave the chair, but I never could at that time -- was advice founded on procedures and precedents in this chamber and other chambers which always met the problem of the particular time.

I can remember, as many others will in this House, when we used to sit rather peculiar and extended hours. If and when, as did happen, we ran into a problem, the procedure was to phone Mr. Lewis whether he was here or at home. Invariably, at some hour of the night he would be at home. There was never any question of his not getting dressed and coming down here and meeting with us and the other clerks at the table to offer advice. He offered not only advice but, let us face it, a solution to the problem at hand. Then the House would resume its business.

To have served the length of time Mr. Lewis has, not only in this chamber but also, as has been mentioned, as an adviser to other assemblies in this country and in other parts of the Commonwealth, is an honour that will fall on very few people. Very few people will have the opportunity of serving not only for the length of time Mr. Lewis has served, but also in the very distinguished capacity in which he has served, and with a feeling of camaraderie, friendship and almost fatherly advice, if I may say so. Not only myself but also other Speakers, Deputy Speakers and Deputy Chairmen have been recipients of that type of guidance.

4:10 p.m.

As a token of the esteem in which he has held, we have just to look into your gallery, Mr. Speaker, and see the staff from his own Legislative Assembly office and the staff from the election office who have come up here to pay tribute to him and to listen to his words, as we all will with great anticipation. I would like to say thank you in a very personal way, Mr. Lewis. If I may say so, we have an individual who is not only a gentleman, but in every sense of the word a gentle man.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Mr. Nixon has moved that this House express its appreciation to Roderick Lewis for his dedication and years of service as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and that notwithstanding the customs of parliament, the Clerk be invited to address the House.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: In accordance with the motion just passed, I invite you, Mr. Lewis, to address this House with any remarks you wish to make.

Clerk of the House: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope you will forgive my back.

This is of course a very emotional moment for me. I had thought of some things it might be rather amusing to say, such as that I was a bit surprised when the House leader announced I was 75 years old because I do not feel any different than I did at 25 years. However, the Canadian Parliamentary Guide says I was born in 1911, and if you cannot believe the Parliamentary Guide, who can you believe?

This is quite a departure from parliamentary precedent. It may be the first time -- I do not know -- in the traditional British parliamentary system the Clerk has addressed the House in his own words. I appreciate the honour very much.

After listening to speeches for 40 years, I was tempted to say that this is my chance to get my own back and put on a one-man filibuster, but I decided that perhaps the less I said the better.

It is an emotional time for me, of course. I have spent a very large portion of my life to date in this chamber and at this table. It will be a wrench not to be sitting in this place where I have sat for so many years. It was a wrench to give up the elections work when I decided it was time to do it because, as my friend Nelson Castonguay once said, "You are either an election nut or you are not." I guess I am an election nut.

Seventy-five is a good, round figure. I came to the conclusion that it was time to step forward to something different with less exacting hours, giving me a little more time to be with my wife, who for many years has sat alone waiting for me to get home from night sessions.

I am glad the government House leader has asked me to stay in the service of the province in a consultative and advisory capacity and to write. As far as consultation and advice are concerned, whoever succeeds me at this table, I promise you I will never impose myself on that person. I will try to assist that person when requested, when asked, but not to impose my views on whomever that person may be.

I have enjoyed more than I can say this place and this work. I have enjoyed my meetings and the acquaintanceships and friendships I have formed with many members on all sides of the House. I can honestly say I have formed some very firm friendships with former members, perhaps particularly with former Speakers, with whom, of course, I have worked very closely.

I simply want to thank all members for their kindness, their patience and their words.

Mr. Speaker: I will say just a word to the members of the House. The Clerk, Mr. Lewis, has said he has made many friends here among current and former members and Speakers. The present Speaker should in some tangible way in the near future have an evening when present friends and older friends would have a time to join together. So that you are aware, I am planning to have a Speaker's dinner some time in the early fall when I will invite former members and former Speakers to recognize and have an opportunity to chat with Mr. Lewis. I hope you will all be available when you receive that invitation.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

Mr. Speaker: It is difficult to tell which member wishes to speak.

Mr. Reville: I am just going to do a little filler at the start of my speech because there is a lot of distraction going on here. I cannot hear myself think. Sometimes when I can hear myself think I still do not know what it means. However, having listened to the speech of the critic for the Conservative Party, I can see he does not know what he means either.

Mr. Ashe: That makes three of you. Is the minister included?

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Reville: The minister has been very clear about what he meant. He said, "Today we move forward with historic legislation." I agree with him that Bill 51 is indeed historic legislation. There is no question that Bill 51 is the most critical piece of rent review legislation that this Legislature has seen since rent review was first introduced almost 11 years ago. It is so important because of a number of concepts that the minister has included in the bill.

It is not a surprise to New Democrats that these features are included in the bill because we negotiated very hard, when on May 28, 1985, the New Democratic Party of Ontario signed an historic agreement with the Liberal Party of Ontario that a particular agenda would be carried out during the first two years of a Liberal government. The accord was specific and probably more specific with respect to housing legislation than in any other area. It might be profitable to remind ourselves of the items that were contained in the accord that was signed between the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party.

The accord called for universal rent control, that is, all rental units regardless of the date of their occupation and regardless of the rent on a unit, would be included under rent control. That is something that has been a long time coming and it is something about which we New Democrats are happy. We would not support any bill on second reading that did not include universal rent control. It means tenants in 120,000 units will now be given the same obvious, rational consumer protection that the tenants have had under the old rent review legislation. That is a good thing.

Another feature mentioned in the list in the accord and reflected in Bill 51 is the idea of a rent registry. It seems obvious that if a government and a society is going to go to the trouble-and it should go to the trouble-of providing consumer protection for tenants, it must also devise a system so that a tenant may be assured that his or her rent is legal. This is important not only on the re-renting of a unit after a vacancy, but also at any time. A tenant should be able to determine whether the rent being asked is a legal rent. We are pleased that concept has been included in the bill and we would not support a bill which did not include a rent registry.

The accord also required that the provisions of Bill 198 be continued. Those members who have sat in the Legislature over a number of years will remember the debate on Bill 198. That bill capped the increase in respect of financing costs and kept it at five per cent regardless of how much a landlord alleged or was able to prove it cost him or her to refinance a building. The conditions that made that type of legislation necessary then continue now. I am glad to see Bill 51 continues those provisions.

The other thing the accord required and which has not been achieved is the protection of the affordable rental stock which the ministry has tried to deal with under Bill 11. I will not speak much about that now except to say that was also specific in the accord and the government has failed to achieve that. It is a very large concern because it is of little moment to have significant consumer protection if the consumers have nowhere to live. The attack on affordable rental stock, which Bill 11 seeks to address and which I hope will address soon, continues and has been stepped up.

The Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling), following the introduction of what was then called Bill 78 for first reading in the House, struck a committee about which we have heard much. The minister scarcely omits an opportunity to remark on the committee he struck. I will acknowledge it was a very clever move on the part of the minister to strike the Rent Review Advisory Committee. I say that in both the senses of the adjective "clever." Clearly, it was useful for the minister to hear from both landlords and tenants.

What the minister seems to be doing with the report of the Rent Review Advisory Committee is to rely on what he calls a consensus to justify all the provisions of Bill 51. That is something I do not agree he is entitled to do on the basis of the breadth of the consensus that was achieved by the committee or by the product of the consensus he claims to have been achieved there.

It is important to realize that the consensus was achieved within the framework of the government's housing policy, the assured housing policy that was announced, I believe in December 1985. That was what was before the Rent Review Advisory Committee when it sat down to work. In fact, its report reflects that very clearly, because on top of each of the sections in the report, a section of the assured housing policy is quoted. I believe what occurred, and the minister will undoubtedly acknowledge this, is that the committee debated the content of the government's housing policy and achieved some kind of a compromise within that framework.

The other thing that is important to recognize about the Rent Review Advisory Committee is that it was composed of co-chairmen, one of whom is and was a well-known landlord representative; in fact, he is the president of Pagebrook Holdings, a company that manages 4,300 rental units, most of which have been occupied since January 1, 1976. The cochairman of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, therefore, came to the exercise with a number of objectives.

I might point out that the other co-chairman with whom I have worked over the years, a person for whom I have a great deal of respect, Mary Hogan, executive director of Parkdale Community Legal Services, is not herself a tenant, although she has a long and creditable track record as a tenant representative.

In addition, there were nine other landlord representatives and nine other tenant representatives, one of whom declined to sign the final report because he disagreed with one of the compromises the group reached. Several of the other tenant representatives are not themselves tenants, although in pointing that out I do not want to attack their credibility in any way.

4:30 p.m.

Having talked at some length with not only the landlord representatives but also the tenant representatives, I have discovered from the leader of the tenants' side that they felt strongly that their job on this committee was to come up with a deal that would ensure the government developed and implemented a housing policy for this province.

A strange kind of negotiating took place in which, in return for the tenants agreeing to give a very large amount of money to landlords, the government promised the tenants it would develop a housing policy. In other words, the tenants of Ontario have bought a housing policy from the government of Ontario. They have paid for it in increased rent dollars, which will go into the pockets of the landlords of Ontario. That strikes me as a very strange kind of arrangement; in fact, it is one of the strangest negotiations I have ever heard of.

Surely it is the job of the government to have a housing policy that not only protects tenants in their apartments but also ensures that there are apartments for tenants to live in. That second objective requires two distinct sets of government policies: one is a policy that protects the housing we now have and ensures that it is maintained in a reasonable manner; the other is a policy that encourages the construction of affordable rental housing.

Those are the jobs of the government, no matter how rich a particular landlord may get. A government must not bargain with a specific group in society by offering them money from another group in society, particularly when the group providing the money is a group that has considerably less money.

I have noticed that the Minister of Housing has been paying attention and scribbling the odd note and he may at some point seek to refute what I have to say, and that is the prerogative of the minister.

Be all that as it may, we have before us at the moment a proposal from the government of Ontario and a consensus, however flawed, that may have been reached by a committee that the government established and is no longer particularly germane.

I assume what the minister is now doing is advancing a policy of the government of Ontario which is reflected in the legislation that has been introduced and which we now debate. The legislation must stand on its own merits, and the minister must now be able to justify each of the sections and subsections in the legislation so this Legislature can reflect on and deal with them how it may.

I want to be very clear about the position of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and the position of my caucus. I am not sure the House knows what the position of the Progressive Conservatives is, although I suspect -- and they may speak to this at some point -- they do not feel very happy about a prospective future that includes rent controls and rent reviews. That troubles me a great deal.

Very clearly, the New Democratic Party stands four-square behind the notion of rent review and the notion that, to control one's life and to plan for the future, tenants of Ontario need and deserve sturdy, rational, rent review policies and procedures. We should be clear on that.

We should also be clear that the New Democratic Party thinks the formula the government has proposed to this Legislature for annual statutory rent increases -- the increases landlords may request without going to rent review -- is a seriously flawed formula. We do not object to the notion of the formula, but we object very strongly to the factors by which the rent increase is calculated.

There are three aspects to this mysterious formula that has been invented by the government for this legislation. We have had some discussion about what is meant by BOCI, the building operating cost index, and RCCI, the residential complex cost index, and how they will effect tenants. The minister has become increasingly skilled at refusing to explain this clearly under questioning by the Housing critics for the two parties that sit on this side of the house. In this speech, perhaps I can explain it briefly so the minister will understand it.

BOCI is a menu of 22 different kinds of costs that might pertain to the operation of rental property. The minister is agreeing; he is following me so far. A factor is attached to each of these operating costs that reflects some kind of inflationary guideline. In some cases it is the consumer price index and in some an industrial cost index. One of the largest costs that pertains to operating a rental property is municipal property taxes, which this government is failing to reform as abysmally as the previous government failed.

As an aside, tenants in Ontario pay far more than their share of property taxes than do home owners. This is a situation that cries out for reform, and I hope the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon), who sometimes also works as the Treasurer, will pull the plug and start serious reform of property tax instead of the tinkering around with assessment, which is more common.

To get back to what BOCI is, one then takes all these weights and measures and averages them over three years. Then one multiplies by two thirds and adds two. This is pretty mysterious, but somewhere in the world, I suppose, there is an explanation. One wonders, why two thirds?

Before I get on to the two thirds, let me go back to BOCI, because I have yet to see any rationale about the weights that are credited to each of the 22 kinds of operating costs. I would like to see some information that demonstrates the menu is weighted properly. If it is not weighted properly, the tenants are going to be the losers.

4:40 p.m.

I understand the two thirds is supposed to reflect the real operating cost of a particular building. In fact, the evidence from the Residential Tenancy Commission is that a specific building, rather than some kind of metaphysical or transcendental building, would normally have between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of the costs listed in the BOCI menu.

If we take a range of 50 per cent to 70 per cent and consider that two thirds is 66.6 per cent, the two thirds clearly is very much towards the high end of that spectrum. It seems to me that choosing a number at the high end of that spectrum tends to favour the landlords as opposed to the tenants. That is one area in which we would like to see the formula amended.

The other area in which we would like to see it amended is at the other end of the formula. After we have gone from two thirds BOCI plus, we then get to two per cent. In our view, the two per cent is gravy that is not justified in any of the material that has been produced in great quantities by the government. It guarantees a landlord a profit, whether or not it is required, quite independent of profits the landlord is already making that do not show in terms of profits on operating costs and appreciation of an investment. There is a division of opinion as to whether the two per cent should be amended to zero per cent or one per cent. The member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) thinks 0.75 per cent would be a sawoff.

Nowhere is there any justification for the two per cent, except that it was the deal that was made. The Legislature is not in the business of making a deal; one hopes it is in the business of developing a housing policy that serves those who need to be served. In my view, the tenants of this province are not well served by a rent increase formula that allows for that kind of profit to go to the landlord.

There is another odd justification I have heard for the concept of BOCI and RCCI. In times of low inflation, the annual rent increase will be higher than inflation, which is a concept I find a little difficult to understand. I am sure the tenants of Ontario will find it difficult to understand as well. It is justified by the suggestion that if inflation were to become higher, the rent increase the tenants would pay in the future would be lower. The problem I have with that is that the government is requesting tenants to pay now for something the government should be doing in the future; to pay more than they should now in the hope that they might pay less later. I am not sure the tenants of Ontario will think that is a good deal. I certainly do not think it is a good deal. Another thing the government has suggested is that it should kill the bill. No, that is not what the government has suggested. The Treasurer gave me the wrong signal. Perhaps he is giving me the "sit down" signal, but he will want to listen to what I have to say because he has always been impressed not only by my erudition -- he is not paying any attention; so I will not continue in that vein.

The government contends that the rent increase being higher than inflation in times of low inflation will convince landlords to do repairs and maintenance in times of low inflation. I suppose the government and the minister might understand the scepticism with which tenants greet such a proposal. Landlords who are traditionally poor at maintenance and repairs are, in tenants' experience, traditionally poor at it whether inflation is high or low. If that were not so, why would the government have gone to the trouble and forced landlords to do the maintenance and repairs for which they are already being paid through the rent?

Presumably, when one rents a unit one expects the landlord to maintain it in a decent condition. There is no question that some landlords are very good at maintenance and repairs, regardless of inflation, and there are some landlords who are very poor at doing them. It seems to me the primary concern of tenants is how much rent is to be paid on a particular unit, a unit that is adequate to a particular tenant's needs and size of household. Second, what kind of condition is the building maintained in? Is it a liveable space? Those are the two most important considerations.

In the proposals the government has made, it has failed on the first of those requirements, that the rent be increased at a level that is manageable for tenants and that does not provide benefits that are not needed for landlords. There are some specifics in the bill which I will touch on briefly and which I will speak about a lot more when we get into committee. Certain financial considerations are outlined in the bill, some of which happen in the rent review process, which has been much improved by the proposals in the bill, and I compliment the minister on those.

Speaking tangentially to the improvements in rent review, the process appears to be redesigned so it will be less adversarial and so a large number of the issues can be cut in a less formal way. Should tenants or landlords want to go through the formal hearing process, they can do so, but they can deal with fewer issues. That strikes me as a good idea not only for tenants but for landlords too, especially the smaller ones.

To return to the theme I was dealing with before I went off on that rent review tangent, a number of financial changes have been made to the rent review legislation we have had in the past, some of which are unfortunate. The most unfortunate of these has to do with what is perceived by the government and by some landlords as a problem but is not so perceived by me. That is the economic hardship or the chronically depressed problem. If there is a fiction abroad in the land that is enjoyed by some few, it is that there are apartment units that are renting much too cheaply. That is an interesting idea.

4:50 p.m.

The bill proposes a way to make sure those so-called affordable apartments become unaffordable. That seems to be a silly move, a move in precisely the wrong direction. What it does is this: if one happens to own a building and can get it designated as one of the chronically depressed buildings, one is somehow entitled to a benefit that no other landlord is entitled to. It is a kind of bonus. One can get one's guideline increased, which the minister has said is going to be 5.1 per cent, or maybe 5.2 per cent -- I will not quibble about 0.1 per cent; it is 50 cents on the monthly rent of a $500-a-month apartment -- but if one happens to own a building and can get it designated as a chronically depressed building, one can get an extra two per cent just on the strength of the designation; and one can get that extra two per cent perhaps for ever, because the two per cent comes if one falls somehow below the market; the minister will say significantly below the market.

However, because of other provisions of this bill, the market is going to go up at quite a rate. I am going to get to those provisions in a minute. That means if tenants are unlucky enough to live in one of those buildings that are called chronically depressed, their rents will increase on January 21, 1987, at the guideline plus two; that is, 7.1 or 7.2 per cent. On January 21, 1988, it will be the guideline of 1988 plus two.

lnterjection.

Mr. Reville: There is some kind of House leader negotiating going on. I am making a speech about a bill the government has introduced, which is a seriously flawed bill. I have spoken very briefly and quite to the point and I am getting to more points here. The member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) is eager to hear the points, and I am eager to tell him the points, and I am going to tell him very quickly. He has to pay very careful attention.

If one owns a building that was occupied after January 1, 1976, one is also entitled to some other boni -- that is several bonuses -- that will increase people's rents by far more than the guidelines. I have spoken about these in question period, and I will allow members to go back and read Hansard to see precisely what I said.

If it is necessary, so that a landlord can emerge from the terror of an economic loss, it is possible to get up to three times the guideline, which would be 15.3 per cent. That is one heck of an increase, particularly when we know that large numbers of tenants in Ontario today cannot afford the rents they have to pay and that 80 per cent of people who are on some form of social assistance live in private rental housing. I can scarcely imagine what it must be like to pay 70 or 80 per cent of my income on shelter and have 20 or 30 per cent left over for frivolities such as food. That is the situation that pertains to 80 per cent of those who are on social assistance in this province, and that is a shocking situation.

The government has done a study on the chronically depressed situation that I hope will be released for all of us to look at. It talks about who lives in units described as chronically depressed rental properties. I am sure the incomes of the people who live in those buildings can also be described as chronically depressed, and that state of affairs should not be allowed to continue in this province. We have to call upon the government to remedy that without delay. The way not to remedy it is to increase the rents of people who cannot now afford the rents they are paying.

The proposed rent registry has a number of very serious flaws in it. Again, we have raised some of those flaws before in the House. There is an artificial and quite bizarre distinction between units of seven and more and units of six and fewer. Somehow, if one lives in a collection of units of six or fewer, under this government's proposal one is not entitled to the same kind of protection under the rent registry program as one who lives in a larger building. There are 446,000 units, fully one third of all the rental units in the province, that have this kind of vague, Lucy-Goosey rent registry about them.

There is a huge giveaway to landlords under this rent registry proposal. If he is a good little landlord and trots on down to the government office and registers his rent, he will be forgiven his past sins. That is kind of an amnesty, a pardon for activity that has taken money out of tenants' pockets illegally over the years. I cannot credit a government being unable to figure out another way to get a landlord to register than to forgive that landlord for what could be millions of dollars of rent that should not ever have been paid and that has been, in effect, stolen from tenants.

Suppose, as a landlord, I do not register. In that case, a tenant can get illegal rent back for six years. That is the statutory limit. It may be convenient for the government to have chosen that statutory limit. I do not think it is very convenient for a tenant who may have paid illegal rent for more than six years. The government had another way to go. It could have had a special section that waived the statutory limit in the case of illegal rents and allowed a tenant to get back any illegal rent paid since 1975. That strikes me as a far better idea than the idea the government came up with.

There are other fairly serious flaws, one of which was also mentioned in the accord. There was a flaw in the original rent review legislation, the Residential Tenancies Act, which allowed landlords to keep charging tenants for costs they no longer were paying. The tenants call this item "cost no longer borne." Landlords call it something else, something more welcoming, but I forget precisely what they call it. The legislation has gone some way to deal with that problem.

Just to be sure people understand what this means, if I as a landlord went to rent review and said I needed an increase to pay for a roof that I have installed and, in order to pay for the roof, the rent will have to increase by X, at some time that X will have been paid off. Let us say it was $10 a month for 10 years. The problem is that $10 stays in the base rent and keeps being added to by rent increases year after year. Not only does one pay for that roof once, but one also pays for it for ever, dozens of times; unless, of course, it is replaced. That situation is patently outrageous. To some extent, the government has recognized how outrageous it is and has suggested that 80 per cent of the capital cost will be deducted. However, it means the tenants will pay for ever for a fifth of a roof they have already paid for. It is an absurd situation.

5 p.m.

When I pointed this out to one of the landlord members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, I asked: "Why 80 per cent? Why do you think you can keep on having tenants pay for ever for 20 per cent of something they have already paid for?" The response was, "It is a deal." It is a bad deal for tenants.

On further questioning, this landlord representative said, "It could as easily have been a 120 per cent reduction," which struck me as a better deal. The landlord would still be making money if he reduced that capital cost no longer borne by 100 per cent, because the landlord made a profit on the value of the improvements to the property. He probably made a profit on the contract to do the work. Therefore, the 120 per cent, which was suggested facetiously by a landlord, strikes me as a policy the government should consider. It would be beneficial for tenants and would not be harmful to landlords.

My party is going to support Bill 51 on second reading because we are committed to rent review. We are committed to a rent registry that works. We are committed to a process that would require a landlord to undertake to maintain and repair his or her building, and we agree that in some cases a bit of a stick may be required to ensure that a landlord does maintain and repair his or her building.

I want to reiterate that it has always been the landlord's responsibility to maintain and repair a building he rents. That is partly what the rent pays for. I think it is irrational to suggest, and the government is suggesting this, that tenants should have to pay extra, more than the unit is worth on the market, to ensure that a landlord does the job for which he is already being paid. It is an absurd conclusion. It makes me think what has happened here is that the government has bought some of the wild stories landlords have been parroting over the years about how terrible a business it is to be in, the ownership of rental property is some kind of curse, one cannot make a nickel at it.

It is clear one can make the odd nickel renting property. Otherwise, why do nearly 400,000 people own rental property in this province? An extraordinary number of people own rental property. It strikes me it must be a reasonable investment or they would not do so.

The legislation needs a refit; that is for sure. There must be public hearings, because I do not agree the tenants of Ontario have the kind of consensus about the proposals of Bill 51 that the minister hopes they have, particularly in the case of tenants who live in post-1975 buildings. I think they are outraged at the contents of Bill 51. I think they feel they have been doublecrossed by the government. They remember the talk about a four per cent guideline. They are starting to figure out that after January 1, 1987, the increase is not going to be four per cent. It is going to be considerably higher, almost four times higher in some cases.

While most reasonable people do not mind the breaking of a promise if it is just a little fracture, the government's promise in this case has been pulverized by the proposals in Bill 51. I am anxious to get on down to the standing committee that is going to deal with Bill 51 and start to move a huge, impressive number of amendments to this legislation so that in the end we end up with a rent review bill that does what it is supposed to: provide consumer protection for the tenants of Ontario.

Mrs. Marland: It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to the second reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes. There is basically one comment to make about Bill 51, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Housing is present this afternoon in the House. The one comment that best describes Bill 51 is that this legislation is a perfect example of a government trying to be all things to all people. With respect, any of us who have any experience in the political arena well recognize that is a basic mistake for any politician or indeed any level of government.

I believe housing should be considered the number one issue for all Ontarians, following the issue of health care services and the health of our province's residents. Since we are all, sadly, very much aware of where that issue of health care stands for the people of Ontario in July 1986 and, tragically, the great risk of a change in health care standards and accessibility in the future for our residents, I will deal with Bill 51, since it is the second issue of importance after our health.

If not immediately affected by the shortage of affordable housing ourselves, we should still consider it the number one issue in understanding the need for shelter and how important it is to the lives of all of us. Out of concern for those in need, who are truly the victims of this Liberal government's confused housing policies, let us reflect on the number of times we have debated this issue in this House in the past year by way of resolution, private member's bill or government legislation. The number of times this issue has been placed on the agenda of this House speaks of the need for this government to address the housing crisis in Ontario.

The 2,300 needy families who are on the Peel Non Profit Housing Corp. waiting list confirms the housing crisis on the local level for people in Mississauga South.

The Liberal government has introduced three bills dealing with housing since being elected. This is proof that it does not have a housing policy, that it does not know what to do and that it is not prepared to make the hard decisions necessary if affordable, available housing is to become a reality in Ontario.

5:10 p.m.

I would like to tell members of an incident that took place last Friday morning. While I was in my constituency office in Mississauga South, a 23-year-old mother came in with her two children under two years of age. This mother was in a desperate strait. Her children were upset because she was so upset, and her tears were because that morning she had received notice that the rent on her two-bedroom apartment, which is in the Ports Hotel in Port Credit, is to be increased to $900 per month.

When I look at that young mother and recognize personally at first hand what the housing crisis is all about, I recognize that any legislation which may lead to a solution for her and her children is legislation we have no alternative but to support. There are other areas of legislation that have to be addressed in this province, perhaps particularly relating to the incident with this young mother.

When I went to the Ports Hotel, which is currently an apartment hotel, and dealt with the owner of the building in person on Friday, I confronted him with the question of this outrageous increase to $900 per month for a two bedroom apartment which would best be described as being in a building that is nothing better than the worst example of a flea-bag hotel one could possibly imagine. It is a building we are not proud to have within our municipal jurisdiction, and I only wish it were in another area so this outrageous owner could not ask $900 per month for such accommodation.

When I said to him, "You know, this is a complete ripoff," he said: "You are quite right, Mrs. Marland. I agree with you. It is a ripoff, but I have to make money somewhere and I am entitled to charge these rents for this accommodation. I am within my legal rights. I have a lot of bread" -- that was his word -- "invested in this building and I can ask this young family for that rent."

I give that example because it tells us again what a lack of affordable housing is doing to thousands of people every day in this province. Affordable housing would help the many battered wives and children who today are taking up what should have been emergency beds in Interim Place in Mississauga South because they cannot get out. Interim Place is a temporary shelter for victims of domestic violence, but because of the lack of affordable housing, there is nowhere for these families to go. These are families with young children who would like to get out of the temporary shelter so that other families who need that escape from domestic violence could get in; and so the vicious circle continues.

We must also reflect on the tremendous amount of money this government has already spent on advertising its innovative approach and solution to the housing crisis. Perhaps members will remember the province-wide advertising campaign that lasted all summer in 1985, in which this government spent our tax dollars advertising in national daily newspapers, regional weeklies and every local publication in the province, saying that it was about to introduce legislation that would house the homeless and stimulate the construction of new affordable housing and that Ontarians should abide by these new guidelines when entering into rental contracts in the months to come.

This bill, one of many that have appeared on the agenda of this House, proposes to do many of these things. Yet the Minister of Housing cannot cite a concrete example of data that would support its planned effectiveness.

What this bill does represent, as my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) so accurately put it this past Thursday, is damage control. They have had to rely on the patience and goodwill of the tenants' organizations, the developers and the landlords finally to produce it.

It is very interesting when we look at the opinions of the people in the industry. I have a letter from a company in Mississauga that builds a number of rental units. In the letter, this gentleman is actually saying two things. This is an example of how two statements can sit in contradiction to each other, whilst trying to address the content of Bill 51, in the same letter.

This gentleman says: "We agree with the Fair Rental Policy Organization that Bill 51 represents a damage control measure, that it does not solve the problems of supply and affordability; but it does provide a foundation upon which to further amend our present system. This is a bill which we landlords need and support."

How strange that it is a bill landlords need and support while in the same breath they say it is a damage control measure and does not solve the problems of supply and affordability. One has to wonder what the landlords are interested in. Are they interested in supply and affordability? What exactly are they interested in?

We must question one more time the priorities of this government, a government that the people of Ontario are increasingly coming to understand has no conscience. This government has attempted to present itself as the crusading white knight, the Robin Hood of the poor and the middle class. The government has demonstrated that it is committed to maintaining this illusion at all costs.

It has victimized our public health system and our medical profession for the sake of political expediency. It will continue to victimize the low-income earner and those truly in need of housing by introducing Bill 51. This inadequate legislation will not increase the supply of affordable housing in this province but, for the sake of appearing to do something, will protect the illusion before everyone abandons the crusade.

We simply cannot afford to ignore the real problem in our housing market today. The crisis is tremendous and the need is tremendous. We know we cannot afford to put on the market the numbers of nonprofit units that are needed. We know that legislation and regulation have created the problem that exists today. As legislators and as a government, members opposite must be courageous enough to face this challenge head on.

5:20 p.m.

The history of rent control in this province is an interesting one and one that began in a very different marketplace and political climate. In 1975, during a period of minority government, with two opposition parties supporting a move to a system of rent review that would protect tenants against the hardship of inflationary rent increases, rent controls were introduced. I do not believe it was a policy designed to remain in effect for ever.

It was a policy that worked for a time. Unfortunately, low-income earners of this province are now paying because no one has had the foresight or the initiative to examine seriously alternatives to this policy. It has become a system unto itself and a policy that no longer serves the purpose for which it was created. The focus should be the creation of more affordable housing; instead, the focus of Bill 51 is the perfection of the rent control system.

We must commend the participants for getting together and coming up with a proposal they, at least, can live with. However, it speaks of a lack of creativity on the part of this government and a serious reversal of the promises that the Minister of Housing made to the tenants of Ontario. Our Progressive Conservative Party has always introduced programs in meeting housing needs that were solutions, not a stopgap temporary formula. I only wish Bill 51 could have had more in terms of solutions and long-term planning for those in Ontario who most need the answer to the housing crisis today.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments? There being none, is there any other honourable member who wishes to participate in the debate? If not, this completes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It was a great opportunity for me to listen to the critics and the member for Mississauga South (Mrs. Marland) respond to Bill 51.

There is a great expectation on this government to produce, and it is producing. As I stated in my opening remarks, Bill 51 is intended to be legislation to protect tenants and landlords, to treat both parties in a fair manner and to set the stage for the rebirth of rental construction.

It is unfortunate that the honourable critic from the official opposition is not here today. I know the comment I will hear is that he will read Hansard, but I had hoped he would be here to listen to the comments of the other members on this bill.

The rent review policy we have introduced is a very extensive piece of legislation. It is legislation that many cities around the world and many provinces have wrestled with. Many governments or municipalities have not taken a leadership role in coming to grips with what rent review is all about. What it has done is seen where there is a place for the landlords, the developers and the people who provide rental property, and the government of the day, recognizing that government alone cannot build all the rental units that are needed. Therefore, the rent review package reflects the co-operation of the private sector with government. That is what the rent review package is about.

The housing policy that is being criticized here -- again, we must realize there was no such thing as a housing policy in Ontario -- is a housing policy that, again I emphasize, addresses all needs. The honourable member stated that I take every opportunity to talk about the historic situation of bringing together those interested parties to make recommendations and to discuss the ways we can resolve this ongoing fight about landlords. Ever since being in school and reading history, hearing about barons and landlords and the fight the tenants are fighting, I have believed that most problems created by people can be solved by people. The landlord and tenant advisory committee sat down and discussed those problems and came up with a policy that addressed all those concerns.

I do not intend to speak at length, because what this bill stands for is there in my opening remarks, but I would like to make a couple of comments on the words of the honourable critic from the New Democratic Party. He speaks of the accord. I am not here, nor is my government here, to take credit; it is here to solve problems for the people of Ontario. We have no patent on the fact that members will have solutions that we, similarly, agree on. When the accord was struck and those members wanted to extend rent review to all units in this province, we had no problem with that and that is why we worked together and said yes. I am sure the members of official opposition would have agreed because they too want rent review on all units in this province -- or sometimes I want to believe that, but I know they have the tenants at heart.

I will not go through the accord, but there are many things in the accord about which we both agree. That is why we signed it. If we did not agree in principle and at heart about this, that we can implement it, we would not agree on that. My honourable friend must understand that we went further than the accord. We realized it could not be a patchwork and we went much further. The separation of Bill 11 from Bill 51 was a recognition that we had to go further than what was in the accord, and we addressed that separately. I hope the members will proceed with sensitivity in having that protection for affordable rental stock.

What we are speaking about is leadership. We have taken the bull by the horns and we realize that if one is going to invest money -- and we have asked the private sector to participate -- we recognize the fact that there is a fair return on the investment, and the guideline addresses that. I am not going to go into details. The committee system structure will enable us to examine all the clauses that we put forth.

I would like to correct the member in his reference to chronically depressed rents. I must comment to my honourable friend the NDP critic that his understanding of the bill has impressed me very much. With a little more coaxing from us, he would endorse Bill 51 as an entirety without any great discussion.

5:30 p.m.

The member speaks about chronically depressed rent, the 20 per cent below the rent that could be obtained, 20 per cent below the potential rent that is charged for similar units outside, but there is another element he missed which is very important. A landlord has to be in the position of not receiving more than a 10 per cent rate of return and he must come before the rent review hearings board before that can be considered approved.

I must make one point. No increase above the guideline can be given or taken unless it comes through the Rent Review Hearings Board. At times when the member speaks about rent escalating 15 or 20 per cent, he must understand that each rent to be charged above the guideline must be justified before the Rent Review Hearings Board. That is not a change; it is being done now.

Members should understand the bill in its entirety. We are committed to Bill 51. It took a considerable amount of time and negotiation, with both sides giving up some of their strong views and realizing they had to come together to bring about a housing policy. We are committed to this bill, and we will be around whenever necessary to debate it in committee.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Are there no questions after the minister's final statement?

The Deputy Speaker: No, there are none.

Mrs. Marland: Too bad.

ELECTION FINANCES ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: This is part of a package, involving the redistribution bill as well, that will be debated in the Legislature for the hour remaining in this sitting, which may be sufficient to complete it. However, if it is not, we expect to go on with the discussions tomorrow. This is an important area of reform to which all parties have contributed.

The original election expenses legislation came into being in 1974 for the 1975 election and was a substantial departure. Without referring to all the events leading up to the introduction of the original election expenses legislation, I will say the government of the day was somewhat reluctant to bring in legislation that would control the expenditures associated with elections. It was really the efforts of the opposition parties in the Legislature, as well as the general feeling in the community itself as expressed by editorial writers and thoughtful citizens in many walks of life, that persuaded the then Premier to bring in the legislation.

One of the substantial objections at the time was that there was essentially no limit to expenditures in campaigns at the local level; however, a limit was introduced for the overall cost of advertising only. During the subsequent decade, we have found that the legislation has worked very well.

The Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses has gained the respect of all politicians and those associated with the election organizations in support of the politicians. The people in general, I also submit, have learned a good deal of respect for the commission, its power and, in many respects, its fairness in dealing in a reasonable manner with the various campaigns. A number of flaws have been pointed out in the legislation over the years, and by dint of widespread consultation among the three political parties in this House and with many interested people in the community, we have come up with this bill.

I cannot report that there is unanimous support for all provisions, but as far as I know there are only minor differences of opinion, which may be settled by amendments being put forward in the committee, or perhaps it will be seen as useful by all members to proceed with the bill as it is and at least give it a reasonable chance. If there is anything inadequate or untoward in the provisions as they are, we can correct that in further amendments, perhaps after the utilization of the bill itself in some electoral confrontation in the far-distant future. I do not know whether this bill will be amended, but I will say that any amendments that are brought forward are going to be minor and not dealing with the principle of the bill.

Basically, the substantial additional principles over the legislation we have been working under for the past decade deal with the establishment of limits at the constituency level. I have felt for a long time that these were necessary. Sometimes it is easier for popular government parties to raise funds than it is for unpopular opposition parties. As leader of an opposition party that may have fallen into that latter category, I can assure members it was difficult raising funds, and it was understandable why the then government was not anxious to bring forward limits on expenditures; by simply holding out its cupped hands, the largess of the community seemed to fall into its coffers. One can understand why they were not keen to have the kinds of limits on constituency expenditures that I felt were lacking.

This does not mean opposition electoral contests have not been reasonably well financed. Since all this material is public knowledge, anybody is free to compare the expenditures in any of the constituencies, both in the most recent election and going back for the past decade. It is understandable that most people feel it is fair and fitting that a reasonable limit be established on expenditures at the local level.

This bill has a formula for the establishment of that limit which places it at approximately $50,000 for an average riding. Many members here would point out that this is four or five times the amount of money they actually spend, and a few members would find that their electoral style would be somewhat cramped and that they would have to halve their expectations for expenditure. The discipline that is inherent in the provisions of the bill will be good for political parties and individual candidates, and I hope there will be substantial support in the Legislature for that concept.

The other innovation I am particularly interested in is that the bill requires the reporting of contributions for leadership conventions. It may be difficult to assert the full power of law in all respects, but I do believe the provisions are workable. I have gone through three or four leadership conventions myself. From this standpoint, it all gets a little vague and the events tend to run together, but I do believe public reporting of the funding of leadership conventions is useful. I was particularly concerned that money raised with substantial tax credit support was being collected at the constituency level and then being reallocated in support of leadership candidates. This matter required some modicum of control, and I believe the bill very effectively brings that forward.

5:40 p.m.

I sincerely hope the House will approve the bill in principle, and that when we review it in committee there will not be amendments of any substantial nature. All of us are looking forward to the first utilization of the new legislation, which also improves the subsidy paid to bona fide candidates under a formula that had grown substantially out of date over the passage of the 10 or 12 years since the legislation was originally enacted.

I once again want to express thanks for the co-operation of the representatives of all parties who have taken part in this. I particularly want to mention Barbara Sullivan, a former member of the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses who is currently on the staff of the Treasurer. She worked with representatives from the other parties so the actual provisions of the bill would meet, as closely as we could provide, what we considered fair and equitable legislation and control in the important democratic matter of paying for the electoral process.

Mr. Breaugh: I am sure many of us on all sides have had an opportunity over the past few years to look at revisions to the Election Finances Reform Act and the way the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses functions. That has culminated in the bill before us today. We support the bill. There are parts, as the previous speaker said, that we are not quite as gung-ho about; for example, putting election expenses and disclosure requirements on leaderships. Frankly, because of the practical ramifications of that, we are not terribly convinced that can be done.

Those of us who have had a chance to work with this act and this commission and the federal act and its approach are somewhat taken aback by the differences we see. If there is a hallmark in the Ontario work in this jurisdiction, it has been the reasonableness of the commission. The commission does seem to understand that in all our ridings there are people working very hard under somewhat difficult circumstances sometimes, as many elections are, to keep an accurate record of expenditures, where one got money, how it was spent and all that.

They have been reasonable -- I guess that is the key word again -- in setting out standards for people in the ridings and making them meet those standards, but they have not been obtuse or obnoxious about all that, as they can be. We have not had big police investigations here, but we have been persistent and consistent in getting people to comply with the act; sanctions have been used. I think our experience has been a positive one.

I personally am an advocate of keeping a careful accounting of expenditures during the course of elections. That should be a matter of public record; it is in Ontario. The advantages of a candidate or a political party in terms of raising and spending large amounts of money during the election period are somewhat limited under this kind of legislation, as I believe they should be.

In short, we support the legislation. It has been quite a while getting here. I am aware that in a previous incarnation there were recommendations from the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses on even rather small matters: on small cash donations being raised from $10 to $20 and on small wording amendments to the act itself. They have not been able to hit this Legislature for some time.

One of the things I would like to put on the record today is that I believe the commission is doing a good job. It has a new commissioner, who I believe has respect from all sides in this house. I would regret it if we did not see another report from the commission for a long time. I encourage them to report regularly and to have the Legislature respond to their needs.

It seems to me they are doing a job that is difficult, but they are doing it well, and they deserve our attention. When they bring to our attention that some drafting changes should take place in the act or that some changes should occur on an annual basis to reflect different circumstances, we should be able to respond to that, and it should not be held back for a long time.

We will support this bill. We understand a couple of drafting amendments will be put forward as we go through committee, and that is no major problem for us. We think it is good legislation that is long overdue. It is the end result of a lot of hard work by a lot of people, and it deserves that kind of recognition.

Miss Stephenson: I have a question I hope will be addressed, as the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) suggested, by subsequent meetings of the commission.

I am somewhat disturbed by the section of the definitions in which contributions are outlined, and it has been disturbing to me for some time. There is no major change in that definitional activity, but there is a measure of concern that should be addressed by the commission at some point. I hope the government House leader will try to ensure the commission will look at this very critically.

There are definitions of unpaid voluntary labour that are generally accepted but not necessarily precisely defined. There are definitions of products, goods and services that are accepted by the commission; for some people, apparently, they can be produced at no cost at all, and for others in absolutely the same circumstances they cost a significant amount. These are differences that should be investigated by the commission.

I hope the government House leader and the member for Oshawa will encourage the commission to examine those definitions of contributions very carefully to make sure they are the same for everyone. After a mere 11 years and four elections in this House, I am not at this point convinced they are the same for everyone, although I believe the commission tries very hard to ensure they are at least equitably examined by the commission itself. Perhaps it is a question of the reportage that is necessary; perhaps it is a question of other things. I hope that exercise is pursued.

On motion by Mr. Harris, the debate was adjourned.

REPRESENTATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved second reading of Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am very glad my friend the member for Oshawa is here so the House will not pass this by without noting I had mixed up the bills.

Mr. Breaugh: He did not.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes. Now we are back on the right one. We have the two major speeches completed.

Mr. Martel: What is the real order now?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: For those pedestrian thinkers, it is one after the other.

Miss Stephenson: Has the Treasurer got a program?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Miss Stephenson: Will he kindly tell us what it is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is the same as the member's.

An hon. member: Let us get on with it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Yes, if I may.

5:50 p.m.

The government puts the bill forward in the House in exactly the same terms as it was delivered to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Commission. The commission was established by order of this House almost 20 years after the Legislature decided redistribution should be completely apolitical and carried out by a commission headed by a judge with whatever backup assistance was required to redistribute the boundaries of the constituencies without any partisan political input.

It was possible, and still is under this procedure, for the political parties of the province as represented at the provincial level or at the constituency level to appear before the commission and express any views they might have as to whether the boundaries were appropriate. All of us have heard the stories about the bad old days when politicians would retire, usually just those of the government party, to look at the map of the province and carve up the constituencies in a way most beneficial to them.

Miss Stephenson: It was begun in 1934, I believe.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As a matter of fact, I was going to say the last time this was done successfully was when the riding then called Brant was established under the auspices of the Progressive Conservative Party. They decided to hive all the Liberals in the area around Brantford into one constituency. I was not going to raise this, but since the honourable member has interjected, I thought I might assist her in her story until she has a chance to make a speech.

The hiving of the Grits around Brant made the election there a real contest but one that was started off perhaps a little bit unfairly. It should be also interesting to know that the then Premier, George Henry, who campaigned on the slogan "George Ploughs a Straight Furrow," had decided for reasons of economy to reduce the number of constituencies from about 120 to 90, a substantial reduction indeed. Since most of those were then represented by Conservative members, there must have been a great hue and cry and gnashing of teeth in the caucus and in the corridors of power in those days.

Those days are gone for ever, or they should be. It should not lie in the hands of individual members to adjust the boundaries in anything other than the most minimal way. Where a name is misleading for a constituency or where a line has been drawn by mistake involving only a handful of electors, then I think the House would have the right and the power to adjust it, but for us to put our judgement against the impartial judgement of the redistribution commission is another matter.

The House decides what to do with bills before it, but I emphasize that this particular bill establishing the constituencies in Ontario was not entered into without careful consideration and independent consideration for many months and, in fact, years. The original proposals were distributed widely by advertisement across the province with invitations to any citizen or groups of citizens, municipalities, political parties or any organization that would be affected to come before the commissioners and express their views.

Based on the original recommendation, I and most members of the Legislature had a chance to express our views to the commissioners' meeting in an open situation, where anybody could come and hear what was put forward and express his own views. There was a general change in the boundaries as they were first expressed by the commissioners, who brought forward an additional report some months later.

That report was debated extensively in the Legislature, where individual members had an opportunity to speak, often in the actual presence of the commissioners, who attended in the galleries on a regular basis. The views expressed by the individual members, together with the Hansard report of any of the objections or suggestions for change, were taken away a second time by the commissioners for review.

As a result of that additional review, we received the bill as a draft coming from the commissioners to the Speaker and put in the hands of myself as the government House leader. It was introduced into the House without any change whatsoever, and it is my contention that it should pass through the House without change.

Mr. Hennessy: Oh, oh.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is my argument, and there is nothing wrong with my putting forward that view. It has been the traditional one expressed by the government down through the many years in which the Progressive Conservatives had the carriage of this important democratic responsibility. I am aware of no case where the bills introduced by the Progressive Conservative governments during previous years were in any substance amended, except for the possibility of some name changes. I simply put that to the honourable members as a tradition that has been established here that is opposed to the old process, where the politicians got the map and carved it up to suit themselves.

We should bear in mind that the constituencies we sometimes refer to as our constituencies are not ours at all. We have the opportunity to seek re-election in any constituency we choose. No law says one has to live in one's constituency; in many urban constituencies there is not a tradition that the member actually lives in the area he chooses or desires to represent.

Having pointed out the traditions of this House, which I consider to be healthy and democratic, I say again that the House disposes of this legislation as it sees fit. I hope the individual members are well aware of any dangers in putting their judgement ahead of the judgement of the commissioners, which is totally nonpolitical, nonpartisan, at arm's length and has all the majesty of the judiciary of Ontario. For that reason, I am honoured indeed to move second reading of the Representation Act and will listen to the views expressed by the honourable members with much attention.

Miss Stephenson: I would like to question the government House leader for a moment. Since he is aware that it has been many decades since members of this House actively carved up ridings for themselves --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can remember it, and the member can.

Miss Stephenson: I remember it as a small child, and I believe the Treasurer was involved in the carving at the time, because his father was a member. I do not believe his father was involved in it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It was the dirty Tories who did it then.

Miss Stephenson: I am not sure that is so. None the less, I simply want to ask the government House leader whether, if there are rational, small boundary changes that appear to have the support of the various ridings involved, those small changes might be considered? Will name changes that represent more accurate descriptions of the ridings as they have been developed by the commissioners be accepted by the government House leader as reasonable amendments?

Mr. Jackson: I have a question as well for the government House leader. Specifically, it has to do with his statements about how the process had changed and how the process is at arm's length. Will he please confirm that during the public hearings between phase I and phase 2 there was an open invitation to make suggestions for amendments; that, where possible, agreement should have been reached between the members affected, and that it carried a very weighty argument in the presence of the commission and became a valid recommendation before the commission if the incumbent members by agreement felt the change did not violate the 25 per cent rule?

6 p.m.

Mr. Turner: This has to do with the procedure and the process we followed between the first recommendation and the second recommendation. The first recommendation came out and we had a chance to speak to it. The various parts of the ridings affected also made their views known. In the second phase, however, a very small part of my riding was affected and it did not have the democratic right to appeal. That part is now contained in the second recommendation as part of another riding. Does the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) think this is a fair process?

Mr. Lupusella: I also want to rise and express my concern in relation to the procedure of the commission looking after the issue of redistribution. In presenting the bill to this Legislature, the Treasurer stated that the procedure was fair and democratic. I want to question for a moment the democratic process of the present system. Perhaps it sounds democratic, but if one compares our way of representing a riding with the procedure used in Europe or other jurisdictions which use the proportional vote rather than the riding or the boundary approach, then our system is undemocratic.

I want to make a few comments as to how the system is undemocratic. With the present system, the commission gives guidelines of approval about adjustments of boundaries which take place every 10 years, as I understand it. When an election is called and three candidates are running, only one person wins. The other two candidates lose the election and all the votes in a specific riding are lost or dispersed. They are not absorbed by the party which eventually would redistribute the votes to other candidates belonging to the same party. In that way, a good majority of people are not represented through their votes.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There will be plenty of opportunity to exchange views. In answer to the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), if name changes are agreed upon on all sides, I have no objection to that at all. I do have an objection to changing the boundary that has been recommended by the commission if there is a significant change in population. In looking back at the traditions that have been established in this chamber, no significant changes involving populations have occurred that I am aware of, although name changes have.

The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson), who has been assiduous in his detail in this matter, asked why it could not go forward if I felt there was some agreement between phase 1 and phase 2. I am a bit nonplussed about the phases. Phase 1, in my view, was when the commission made its first report. That was advertised extensively and people looked at it and said, "This is what they have done to our community." Many municipalities immediately responded, many political organizations and politicians responded, and a number of other groups responded and asked for permission to talk to the commissioners. In all cases, they had an opportunity to express their views.

That leads me to the comments made by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Tamer) because it was the subsequent phase in which a change affected some of his constituents and a right of appeal was presumably missing. It did not go back to the commissioners until after the debate that took place in the House. It was quite possible -- and I believe the honourable member himself might have brought it to the attention of the commissioners -- that something had happened of which some of his people and perhaps he himself did not approve. The commissioners then had an opportunity to look at those objections and make their final report to the House. On that basis, I believe it should be enacted the way they reported.

Mr. Jackson: I welcome the opportunity to express some concerns about this bill as it affects the representation and the democratic voting rights of the citizens of Ontario. More particularly, I wish to rise to discuss the concerns that have been expressed by the citizens in east and southeast Burlington and the concerns they have that this bill will not well serve their democratic rights and, more important, their democratic needs to be effectively represented in Ontario.

They object strenuously to the report of the electoral boundaries commission. They have tried to make a case in this House and on several occasions to state that case through their incumbent member. Those are a matter of record and I do not wish to take the House through each of those presentations, but members will recall it was my first motion as an MPP on June 13, 1985. I also made substantial remarks with the commissioners present in the Legislature on December 13 and January 6.

There is a long history of the evolution in this riding. To compress it, I want to refer to the fact that there was an inequity in phase 1. It split part of our community into another community. A section of east Burlington was put in with Wentworth North riding. The commission saw fit not only to acknowledge that but also to correct it. That came without the assistance of the members of the Liberal Party, because before that commission hearing, we had representation from only the Progressive Conservative Party and New Democratic Party. The Liberals were noticeably absent from any attempts to try to save Aldershot.

It appears that same theme arose when the commission announced its second phase and advised that a section of southeast Burlington would be divided and part of it go to the city of Oakville. Again, at an all-candidates meeting the Liberal candidate indicated it was the first time he had heard about it. One year later, we have had an opportunity to involve all three political parties in this process.

This problem in east Burlington has aggravated the citizens so much that they conducted a public meeting, because they realize they are being disfranchised. We believe it is the only one of its type in Ontario that was conducted after the commission's findings and report. They conducted a door-to-door campaign to gather petitions from the citizens, with an absolutely overwhelming response. There were more than 3,000 signatures. I believe, and the House leader might confirm this, it was the only petition that was tabled in this Legislature on behalf of citizens.

There were two unanimous resolutions from the council of the city of Burlington and from the regional council of Halton. The elected representatives and the citizens have stated in unanimous terms that this section of the community should not be severed and put into a totally unrelated community.

6:10 p.m.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) made extensive reference to an apolitical process and almost made an appeal to the members of this chamber not to refer to this as "my riding." I ask the member to look, perhaps for the first time, at this concern and this electoral travesty. I ask him to look at this not from the point of view of it being any one politician's riding but in the light of the overwhelming arguments presented by the citizens. In this instance, it is the citizens of Burlington who are trying to appeal to this government to be flexible enough and understanding enough that this amendment occur.

It has enjoyed, up until now, quite a nonpolitical track. At one point, all three members in this House who represent Halton had agreed on that. It is that most serious and sensitive point that I wish the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to focus on for a moment.

Having been here only a year, I have been told that one is only as good as one's word and that one tries to make effective agreements based on clear understandings and agreements among all three political parties. To this end, a meeting was convened with the three Halton representatives with a view to reaching a consensus, not on behalf of our ridings but on behalf of the wishes of the citizens of Halton region.

Publicly, there were statements made in this House in the presence of the commissioners, who sat in the chamber and listened, by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) indicating that all three members were in agreement on the change. I made statements and the member for HaltonBurlington (Mr. Knight) in his initial comments in the Legislature made reference to changes.

I have since learned that is not the way things work around here. Sometimes one can have the luxury of unilaterally changing one's mind. I learned somewhat late, to the disappointment of most all of the citizens of Halton region, that one of the three incumbent members had apparently changed his mind or lost interest in his support and that this had been communicated to the commission.

That is a very serious matter, in my view. That is one of the reasons I asked the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk whether part of the process, after the second round of public hearings, did not involve an encouragement that where changes were felt necessary it was important to get unanimity from all the elected representatives and the citizens' groups involved. We thought we had done that.

We thought we conducted ourselves in a manner above reproach, in full view and for the interest solely of the citizens of east Burlington and Halton and not for any one political party. Yet now I learn the commission had been advised that the member for Halton-Burlington had withdrawn his support. He gave no real reason for it; just did not think it was worthy of support.

He got his amendments through. The member for Oakville and the member for Burlington South found no reason to second-guess the judgement of another of the three Halton members of the Legislature. We saw no reason to disbelieve that a process conducted in full public view, in the hands of judicial individuals on the commission, with -- I hate to use the expression -- a handshake among three men and with what I thought would have been a round of great public support for the move would survive. Then we learned that somehow this agreement had evaporated because one member from the government side saw fit not to support it.

The New Democratic Party and its representatives in the riding affected have been most supportive. They have indicated publicly and privately that there is nothing political about this request and that it is in the best interest of the citizens that they not be severed so dramatically. That would, in effect, sever east Burlington from any communications vehicle with its elected representative.

Very few people realize that there is no commonality of newspapers or of the local cable TV. Even the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail virtually stop their saturation at Burloak Drive and the Hamilton Spectator has its impact. It is a clearly defined communications division and it would be virtually impossible for the citizens in this area to receive any ongoing communication other than the three newsletters the Legislature makes available to its representatives to serve the citizens. With the exception of that newsletter, there is no effective vehicle for communications.

The second concern is the disfranchisement of their voting rights. I am talking purely about an urban problem here and not the one that, unfortunately, many rural communities must experience in the province. For example, because there is no bus service between Burlington and Oakville, senior citizens in Burlington who cannot get enumerated have to get a taxi or impose on a friend to drive them all the way into Oakville just to register their vote; not just to register their vote, but also to register to enable them to vote. Then they may have to return to vote, if they are not placed on the proper polling register back in Burlington. Although this may not seem a significant issue, and it is a problem in rural areas, it seems a crass and unfair process through which to put the citizens of east Burlington.

I have made much of the fact that there is a lot of public support. I ask the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, who is expressing leadership on behalf of the governing party on this and giving guidance to his caucus when discussing how to vote on this matter, to consider the situation in east Burlington. The citizens involved are unique in so far as they themselves have made the appeal to the government. Surely a government that proposes to keep an open-door attitude should not propose to have a closed mind when listening to the citizens of a community.

I will also appeal at this time to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have established a long tradition of understanding grassroots issues and community representation. It appears that an issue such as this would be a natural for them to support. They have also indicated privately and publicly that they sympathize with and support the amendment.

What is holding up this amendment? Why is the government reluctant to look at the proposed amendment, which I would be pleased to move when we are in committee of the whole House? The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has indicated to me on several occasions that it would not have the proper appearance. I say to him that is an unfair indictment of a citizen concern that is being tabled in this Legislature on behalf of not a political party but citizens.

It is not my riding, as he suggested. It is the riding of Burlington South with Burlington voters who are going to be disfranchised. There still exists to this day unanimity in the community, agreement with the region and the municipality with respect to their resolutions. We seem only to have failed with respect to winning back support from the member for Halton-Burlington. We will never know why he has chosen not to support the citizens in Burlington in such an important matter, why he has refused even to respond to the regional council, of which he was a member in good standing for many years, or the council of the city of Burlington with respect to this amendment.

6:20 p.m.

It does represent a test of this Legislature's courage to deal with an issue which may appear to be partisan but which in fact is not. I ask my colleagues in the NDP to join with their riding association which has made a very strong appeal to them to consider supporting this. Their immediate past-president, Jim Ryan, is an alderman in good standing in the affected area and he has communicated that directly, as has Alderman Walter Mulkewich, a very well respected alderman and the current president of the NDP riding association.

I am disturbed, however, that the Liberal Party has seen fit not to respond in an open manner in this fashion. I want to refer to some comments that were made on its behalf on this issue. It concerns me that the immediate past-president said representation being spread in Oakville and Burlington was not a big issue. Its current president said that any attempt to try to change this decision was merely an exercise in wind. That appears to be the extent of the support the Liberal Party has given to the citizens of east Burlington for what is not just an idle concern. There was a petition signed by 3,000 citizens, the only petition tabled in this Legislature, and unanimous resolutions of the Halton regional council and the city of Burlington council, the only resolutions that were tabled in this Legislature.

In conclusion, I invite the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk to encourage his caucus to look favourably, not upon my riding of Burlington South but upon the request of the citizens of Burlington South that has been so well documented.

I will be presenting an amendment to the bill when it goes to third reading. If the member checks with the member for Halton-Burlington, there may be some change in attitude for a second time. I hope he will see his way clear to support this amendment.

Mr. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of my party about this bill, which will establish new ridings and boundaries for the next election campaign and for future Legislative Assemblies.

I want to indicate to the House that we will be supporting this legislation. It has gone through a process of considerable consultation in which we have all learned to respect the judgement of those who have drawn up the boundaries. Of course, there will be differences of opinion, questions of expertise and so on, as they have been raised by the member for Burlington South.

I should say to him that our party has decided to support amendments only if they have the support of all three parties, for a very basic reason. I want to tell him why. It has nothing to do with the wisdom of any amendment, but I want it clearly stated and that is why I am stating it here for future reference.

Our party views the question of redistribution as something no majority alone should be allowed to change. Therefore, if we have a group of people who have decided on the boundaries, the only condition under which we will accept some changes -- and we had some concerns as well, of which I am sure the member is aware, which we have expressed in the discussions with the other parties -- is that they can be negotiated successfully, with all parties concerned agreeing.

I want to make it very clear that if there is ever a majority situation in the House, we want to have the same rule apply. The Treasurer is shaking his head. He will not be in that majority situation, so it will not concern him at all.

Mr Breaugh: It does not apply to him.

Mr. Rae: It does not apply to him anyway. I am saying it is a basic principle that should be involved.

We will be supporting the bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The third party has some name changes.

Mr. Rae: We have some proposals for name changes, as the Treasurer has shouted out very conveniently. I respond by saying, yes, we do have some.

We expect those changes will take place if they are agreed to by all members of all parties, but we are not about to see a process of gerrymandering or anything taking place by virtue of the power of the majority. However, as a party in this assembly, we may be able to play off one demand against another and thereby effect some changes.

In my view -- and I am speaking personally in this regard -- it is time this House looked at proportional representation far more seriously than it has done before. It would be in the interests of this House if, prior to the next time there was to be a redistribution, we looked hard at a way of ensuring that the degree of representation in this House reflects the distribution of votes as they take place across the province.

I am not suggesting that we abandon completely the notion of geographical representation or the notion of regional representation. I do not think that would be wise in a province that is as geographically diverse as ours. It is important. It has been expressed by the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella); it has been expressed by a great many other people. It is time that we looked hard at whether the first-past-the-post system which, after all, comes from a time and a place very different from the time and place in which we now find ourselves-is the most fair and effective way for us in an urbanized society to reflect the preferences of the voters of this province, which is what this assembly is, in measure, supposed to do.

I take the view that it should be possible for us to devise a uniquely Canadian and, indeed, a uniquely Ontarian system that would combine the need for strict geographical representation on a riding basis with a degree of proportional representation. I can tell the members -- and I do not think I am telling any secrets or anything that is not widely known -- that this proposal was discussed and suggested in 1980, after the election prior to the most recent election of the federal House, when the Liberal Party found itself without any representation -- virtually none -- in western Canada. At the time, the Prime Minister was aware that, although he had a majority in the House, he had a problem.

I suggest to the members opposite that they have a problem too. They do not have anybody in the cabinet from northern Ontario. They have a significant problem with respect to representativeness and it would be in the interest of the entire House if we looked hard at this. It is something I hope the House will look at the next time around.

Briefly, there are two arguments made against proportional representation or any form of it. The first is that it is not in our traditions; the second, that it would produce a House of permanent minorities. Let me deal with both those so-called objections.

With respect to the first point, I do not think it is true to say that it is not within the Canadian tradition. In fact, the demand for PR, as the Treasurer well knows, was a consistent demand of the United Farmers of Ontario, of western co-op organizations and of those who sought to make their assemblies more representative. It has a long-standing tradition in this country and was seriously discussed federally in 1980 between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party but rejected by the Conservative Party.

With respect to the second point, that it would produce minorities, I make no apology in saying that I happen to believe that minority government produces the best government possible in this province. Given the nature of our party system, the fact that we have a three-party system, we have had several instances in the past 20 years where the so-called first party has received less than 45 per cent of the vote but has managed to achieve an unnatural majority precisely because of the system and the way the votes are distributed. I happen to believe it would be in the interests of Ontario if this assembly continued to represent, as this House has since the most recent election, the preferences of the people as expressed in an election.

Let us get on with this bill, but let us be more imaginative and creative the next time to make sure that we have the most democratic assembly and the most democratic election process we can devise.

On motion by Mr. South, the debate was adjourned.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 43, An Act to amend the Shoreline Property Assistance Act.

Bill 76, An Act to Implement the Terms of a Settlement of all Claims arising out of the Contamination by Mercury and other Pollutants of the English and Wabigoon and Related River Systems.

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 98, An Act to Implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

Projet de loi 98, Loi concernant la mise en oeuvre de la Convention de l'Organisation des Nations Unies pour la reconnaissance et l'exécution des sentences arbitrales étrangères.

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Speech-Language Pathologists and Audiologists.

Bill Pr5, An Act respecting the Public Utilities Commission of the City of Scarborough.

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the St. Elizabeth Home Society.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company.

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting Pamaglenn Investments Limited.

Bill Pr14, An Act respecting Sherrydale Investments Limited.

Bill Pr16, An Act to revive Alliance Française de Toronto.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Cornwall.

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive Mylake Mines Limited.

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

Bill Pr35, An Act respecting the Young Men's Christian Association of Cambridge.

Bill Pr37, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

The House adjourned at 6:33 p.m.

7 juillet 1986