Journal des débats 1986-juil-10 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In the absence of the minister momentarily, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Ward), is more than willing to assist in the discussion of these amendments. I will immediately go and ring the fire alarm.

Miss Stephenson: I shall not suggest that, although it is discouraging to watch totally uninterested faces when one is debating an issue such as this.

Mr. McClellan: We are all interested.

Miss Stephenson: I cannot see the face of the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan); I can see only over there. It is even more discouraging when there is almost no one over there to talk to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: They must have known the member was going to speak.

Miss Stephenson: They probably did. That is probably the reason they are absent at the moment.

The issue we are attempting to address at this point -- that is, the issue of interchangeability -- is one that is absolutely vital to the effective and appropriate function of the bill which we completed in committee yesterday and to this bill.

Having had some slight background in this area, I understand the lack of concern at the beginning of the development of this program under policy for the amount of security which one could introduce into the concept of interchangeability. With the increasing knowledge of the problems that are arising related to the administration of drugs and with the spate of publication which has occurred within the past year and a half, I find it almost unbelievable that the ministry would not be equally concerned about attempting to guarantee as far as possible the interchangeability of drugs.

Those who have written on this subject are agreed that although we do not have all the final answers, the one course we can pursue, beyond the chemical testing which is currently being done, is the clinical trial approach. That will at least give us some indication about whether there are characteristics of the drugs that are being prescribed as interchangeable which are sufficiently similar to allow that kind of description to be used.

Every person in this chamber is aware that there is no drug that is completely without risk. There is no pill that one can take that does not have some slight side-effect or some potentially damaging effect, depending upon the dosage, the length of time it is taken, the current health of the individual and other circumstances. Therefore, it is equally obvious that the science of pharmacotherapeutics is to balance the risks of the drugs which are available to us for the treatment of disease with the problems the patient is facing at that time to ensure that the risks are outweighed by the potential benefits.

If one does not know what the risks are of a specific medication, it is very difficult to make any type of judgement. As a result of the demands of the food and drug division of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the health protection branch, one does have a clinical trial experience with innovative drugs, which at least provides the information to those who are prescribing drugs about the potential side-effects, the potential problems and the potential difficulties. With that information, it is possible to make an informed judgement about the balancing of the risks and the benefits.

Unhappily, when it comes to interchangeability we do not have that information because we have no such clinical trials for 90 per cent of the drugs which are considered to be interchangeable by this province. There is no such information. In the light of their responsibility for the health of patients, is it therefore unreasonable that this is one of the primary motivations of the representatives of the physicians of this province in their public statement yesterday that they will encourage their members -- they will not order them, because they cannot -- to write "no substitution" on all the prescriptions that are related to long-term therapy, therapy for elderly persons and certainly therapy for children?

That is a reasonable position. They cannot be sure that the substitutions which are mandated under Bill 54, and at least partially mandated under Bill 55, will be reasonable drugs to deliver to those patients. Therefore, they are saying very clearly: "You cannot afford to take that risk. The government will not provide the guarantees. Therefore, you must do your best, in your clinical judgement, to ensure that the drugs you prescribe are those whose characteristics you have some information about -- information which is provided by the mechanisms which are currently available through the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare."

I do not believe there is reluctance for any reason other than it is considered to be an increased cost to patients to have clinical trials carried out on drugs which are to be listed as interchangeable. However, I ask the members to weigh the cost of perhaps a few cents per tablet against the many thousands of dollars which it may cost to have that patient hospitalized and treated for a considerable period if he suffers a severe reaction as a result of that substitution. I am not sure that is a very sensible kind of economy at this stage of the game.

10:10 a.m.

The appropriate kind of economy to be exercised by this province is either not to mandate substitution, which I believe would be wrong at this point, or to ensure that drugs which are to be substituted, which are called interchangeable, are in fact interchangeable as a result of requiring the manufacturers to carry out the clinical trials that will provide, to the best of our capability at this point -- and that is not perfect yet, believe me -- an understanding that these drugs are truly interchangeable, that the degree of therapeutic effectiveness is comparable, that the degree or number or frequency of side-effects is comparable and that the degree of potentially lethal effects is comparable. That is what we mean and that is what the government has to find out.

One cannot discover this, ladies and gentlemen, my friends in this House, as a result of biochemical tests carried out in very limited circumstances on significantly healthy human beings who do not have any kind of disease and are totally healthy. That is not the way to determine interchangeability. It certainly gives one information about some of the pharmacokinetics of the drugs to be tested and about whether the active principle of that combination is going to be relatively equal to the active principle of the drug to which it is being compared; but it tells one nothing about all the other compounds that are in those drugs and their potential effect upon the patients who are likely to be taking them.

It is not impossible for thoughtful researchers to develop the kind of protocol, which would not be excessively costly, to ensure that drugs which are to be considered for interchangeability are subjected to a clinical trial that would provide the broad spectrum of administration and the broad spectrum of result which is necessary to have at least some indication of their true interchangeability.

I really hope the members of this Legislature understand that unless they move in this direction, they are probably doing what Dr. Levy has suggested legislators and others in authority are doing at present by mandating interchangeability without the proper, appropriate and sound foundation; that is, they are probably legislating the ill health of a considerable number of patients and the death of some.

I hope they know that unless they do something about this in this legislation, they are playing Russian roulette with patients' lives. If they do not understand that, they should not be in this chamber. Therefore, I ask sincerely that the members read the information I delivered to every member of the committee, and some to every member of this House -- information which has been developed in Canada by Canadian experts, even within the food and drug directorate of the health protection branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare, which is becoming known as one of the areas of real concern and expertise about the problems related to interchangeability.

The articles that have been published by Dr. Napke et al. in several journals have been published internationally on five occasions this year. This is not a problem which is limited to Ontario; it is worldwide in the developed world at present.

Surely Ontario must attempt to remain a leader in this area of health services. This is a very significant part of health services. I invite the members to read the articles which have been submitted to them and to take heed. Right now, they have the responsibility of ensuring that we either do our very best on behalf of patients in this province, in respect of the quality of the drugs prescribed by our mandate, or play fast and loose with the lives of Ontarians.

I know it is not easy and I know it is difficult to suggest that there should be a significant change in the procedure that is followed by the Ministry of Health in ensuring that drugs are listed within the formulary. For a period of approximately 10 years, what it has done is something that was related to the growth of a program, based on a realistic principle and one that should be encouraged, given the spiralling costs of health care; but that activity has to be tempered with the judgement that has been developed as a result of the past decade of clinical examination, the development of natural history and the development of the kinds of information that have been published in medical journals and journals of pharmacology throughout North America and Europe.

Surely it is time for us to make that kind of change if we are going to legislate the mandatory substitution of drugs for senior citizens, for beneficiaries of drug benefit programs and for those who under Bill 55 will be told there is an interchangeable drug of lower price and given the opportunity to choose that drug without knowing anything about it.

If that is what we are going to legislate, I implore the members to do it on the basis of the best information available to us at present. That best information is that our current method of defining "interchangeability" is totally inadequate in that it does not provide information about the content of every single drug listed within the formulary, and because for many of the drugs, a vast majority of the generic drugs, there is no clinical trial experience for a reasonable comparison of the drugs in the formulary.

I do not believe this is an outlandish suggestion or terribly expensive suggestion. It will cost money, but surely the protection of the health of Ontarians is worth a little money to ensure that we are not legislating their ill health and perhaps their deaths. I hope the members understand this is what they are doing if they do not ensure that adequate clinical trial experience is required for every drug to be listed or designated as interchangeable in this province.

I am aware that change is anathema to bureaucrats. As a matter of fact, I am painfully aware of that. It is also anathema to a lot of professionals. However, there is change that is necessary and this change is absolutely essential if we are going to do the job we were elected to do, which is to protect the people of this province with our health legislation.

I hope the members have seriously considered the impact of the direction that is being suggested strongly to all the physicians in Ontario. I hope they are aware that under Bill 54, when "no sub" is written on every prescription and the additional form is signed, the minister and the ministry at present are required to provide the drug that is prescribed. I hope the members are aware that the cost could be extemely significant in this province, and that if this is carried out, they will probably have destroyed the consumer effectiveness of Bill 55, which is the purpose of introducing this bill, in terms of cost at any rate.

10:20 a.m.

If they are not aware of this, let me remind the members that they have in hand articles from the Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, both the January and March issues of 1986; Perspectives in Clinical Pharmacology from 1985; the Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal of May 1986 with an article written by the dean of pharmacy in Manitoba, and innumerable articles that point out very clearly that the basis at present of our designation of interchangeability is woefully inadequate, terribly and abysmally void of the kind of security that is needed by those who prescribe, dispense and take drugs if we are going to carry out the types of programs we are talking about.

Interjection.

Miss Stephenson: I have no intention of filibustering this, because if the member does not understand this, he should not be here.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We know how strongly the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) feels about this matter, and it was a very relevant and important issue that was raised before the committee. However, the amendment she tabled here and in the standing committee would have absolutely devastating results in terms of access to the generic drugs which are on the market at present.

Her amendment has the implications that every generic would have to be pulled out of the market right now and clinical studies would have to be carried out first. That would result in incredible increases in prices and consumers would be disadvantaged. I do not think there would be any advantage other than millions of dollars of windfall profits to brand-name manufacturers. I know how strongly the member feels about it, but I became convinced throughout the hearings that there were mechanisms in place that could be used to protect the consumers of this province adequately.

One aspect that perhaps should be examined is that the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Pharmacists' Association should look at a province-wide education program using the media and encouraging consumers to ask questions of their pharmacists about what is being prescribed. One of the problems is that consumers do not ask enough questions. I do not think it is appropriate to take all the generics off the market as of the day that these bills become proclaimed. That would result in millions of dollars of extra charges to individuals, who would have to pay for the higher-priced drugs and would not have access to generic drugs in the province.

Miss Stephenson: That is not the intent.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is what it does.

Miss Stephenson: The member keeps telling me that the amendments I am introducing, which I thought would improve the bill, address concerns that have already been met in the legislation. This amendment is effective from the date of the implementation of this bill onward. The Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary, which has already been established with generic drugs, is one which has been in use for some time. We know some of the problems there.

Surely the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee has enough -- at present, it might not, but in the future it should have enough understanding to know which of those may have to be tested, and there may be some which have to be tested, but we are talking about drugs which are to be introduced into the formulary from the date of implementation onward.

With respect to the current formulary, which is already printed, I have no intention of suggesting that this legislation require all those drugs to be tested. Many of them have been in use for some time. Obviously, if they have not been the subject of a lot of reports of adverse drug reactions, they are perfectly all right to keep on using. However, from the time of implementation of this act forward, there should be clinical testing of every drug which will be introduced into the formulary. That is all this amendment says and nothing more.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to read this into the record so the member understands what her amendment says. She is scratching out the one section, and then clause (b) says "equivalent therapeutic effectiveness with one or more other such products as determined by clinical trials."

It does not say that the ones which are interchangeable in the formulary now are considered to be grandfathered and are already determined as interchangeable. It says they cannot be interchangeable unless they have had clinical trials. That is what the member's amendment says. That is what it said in committee and that is what it says now. That would result in every generic drug being pulled off the market the day these bills are proclaimed.

Miss Stephenson: If the member is so convinced that this is what the amendment says, which I do not believe, then there is no reason why an additional fourth component could not be added to this definition. It would say that at the discretion of the minister -- I would anticipate that in this case the minister would use the expertise of the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee because I believe that would be the right thing to do -- drugs currently listed in the formulary might have to be subjected to clinical trials depending on the experience that has been had with them.

If there is a requirement that all new drugs to be listed have to be subjected to clinical trials, then there would be a little additional pressure on the DQTC to decide whether some of those have clinical trials. I am not suggesting, and this amendment does not suggest, that we have to do everything that is currently in the formulary. What we are saying is that from this date -- I see the Deputy Minister of Health, Dr. Dyer, nodding his head up and down. Shall I add the additional fourth part of the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Elston: He was nodding off, not nodding at the member.

Miss Stephenson: No. Dr. Dyer scarcely nods off when he is in the House. There are other times he may nod off -- ask Natalie; she will be happy to tell the minister -- but not when he is in the House.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not all the time when he is in the House, but only when he is listening to the member.

Miss Stephenson: That may be.

Mr. Leluk: Not us.

Miss Stephenson: I am certainly glad to hear that.

If an amendment is necessary to clarify this for those whose minds are muddied about the direction we are attempting to pursue, then I would be happy to draft an additional fourth part of this definition. I thought it could be introduced under the regulatory capacity of the minister as far as those existing in the formulary were concerned. It was my understanding that in this area there could be an additional regulation that would empower the minister to grandfather those currently in the formulary, except where the DQTC has decided clinical trials are necessary.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: That is typical. The Tories want everything in regulations.

Miss Stephenson: The member was not listening to me yesterday when I was screaming bloody murder about the regulation he wanted to have, and the minister gave it to him. Do not talk to me.

May I ask whether it is possible to include that in the regulatory capacity to ensure that the concerns of the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) and the concerns of the Deputy Minister of Health are met appropriately, or is it necessary to add an additional fourth item to this definition?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I rise to respond to the soothing strains of the member for York Mills, who had us all nodding at one stage or another during the presentation.

Specifically in answer to the honourable member's question, under clause 14(1)(a) there are abilities for the minister to prescribe conditions to be met by products or manufacturers in order to be designated as interchangeable; so there already is a provision under which we can put these regulations into the act.

I can also tell the member that, even now, under the operation of the DQTC there are and there have been requests, or at least there is the authority to request more tests if the committee requires and requests it or finds it necessary to ask for more information, and it has done that on occasion, to ensure that it is convinced there is an interchangeability between products.

Probably the best-known recent item brought to my attention is the one raised by the member in conjunction with other members of her caucus; that is, the question of the interchangeability of ibuprofen, which was raised before Christmas 1985 and taken off the listed section in January after the DQTC requested, but did not receive, extra information.

10:30 a.m.

The honourable member has good intentions. I spoke to her yesterday about the same items that were raised by my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside with respect to grandfathering or so-called grandfathering the current book. I know her intention is not to eliminate the generics currently listed under the Ontario Drug Benefit Formulary. However, even though that is not her intention, the words speak clearly. I know she would like to amend them to include the fact that those listed currently in the book would not be affected by the amendment.

However, it is incumbent on me to indicate clearly to the member and to the members of the House that I do not see it advisable to follow the amendment she is providing. I feel that under the auspices of the DQTC we specifically have the opportunities and options. If people with certain expertise deem it necessary to go through a series of extra tests that they require, they can do that already.

As well, the member would have to agree that when we compare the Ontario system with that of other provinces, we have much more comprehensive coverage on these questions than do others. I understand that some other provinces receive advice from the federal authorities on the question of interchangeability, which is not deliberated upon by anybody in the provincial jurisdiction where that advice is received and accepted.

Under current circumstances, I see our DQTC system, which is in addition to the federal quality control system, as one that has been effective and that has done very well over the course of the past several years, even though I know the member holds very strongly the opinion that this would make it better. I do not think it would.

I want to make one other point. In committee we heard a good deal about the question of these tests and clinical trials that the member is requesting, which in those days were limited in terms of comment more specifically to the generic industry. She mentioned yesterday at the beginning of her remarks that she was broadening her concern considerably about the quality of all drug therapies, whether they be initiated under the auspices of the originators or under the auspices of the generic drug manufacturers.

We agree to a great extent that we all have to be assured of the quality control items necessary for the public to receive the best care we can possibly provide. The member has brought to our attention several quotations from authorities about past experiences, a number of them from the United States. She alluded to them again yesterday when she was commenting. We do not disagree with some of the observations made in those jurisdictions. Our jurisdiction, however, is considerably different. They do not have some of the quality control mechanisms that we have.

Miss Stephenson: We do not.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We do. The Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee does extra things in Ontario that are not done in the United States. The member's concerns from a generic standpoint are concerns of all of us in terms of good health and the quality control of manufactured drug products, but we think we have a system that responds, first, to quality control at the federal level and, second, is backed up by expertise at the provincial level with a reasonable and rational exercise of discretion about information filed before the minister, who then makes a decision about listing. The quality control items are there. The extra tests can be required, if needed. As a result, we will not support the amendment proposed in committee of the whole House, just as we did not support it in the committee where this bill first appeared.

Miss Stephenson: It is unfortunate the minister does not understand the difference between quality control of manufacture, quality control in terms of the development of drugs, and the therapeutic effect, or beneficial or nonbeneficial effect, of drugs when administered. He knows nothing about pharmacology and absolutely nothing about practising medicine. It is unfortunate that he is willing to accept the statement about quality control and tests of bioavailability, limited as they are in this province -- and we heard what they were. He cannot tell us what they were because we learned directly from the people who did them.

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: What has happened to the soothing strains from the honourable member? They have deteriorated into a more agitated state.

The Deputy Chairman: This is not a point of order.

Miss Stephenson: It may be an opinion. If the minister thinks these are not soothing, just wait, Buster, because I will be out there leading the charge to write "no substitution" on any prescription that is written in Ontario, because he will not guarantee, as best he can, the security that is necessary. He is trying to persuade us that we should legislate the death of patients in Ontario. I refuse to accept that. That is not hyperbole; that is fact.

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is not fact.

Miss Stephenson: The minister tells us that the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee has the capacity to order the tests. It does, but how many times has it done it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: When it has found it necessary.

Miss Stephenson: In fewer than 10 per cent of all the drugs that were introduced. To my way of thinking, that is not quality control of the administration of interchangeability within the formulary.

Mr. Leluk: It is a big joke.

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is not a big joke.

Miss Stephenson: All the experts, even the members of the therapeutics committee are saying, "We should be doing this." Why cannot the minister understand that it is rational to do it since he does not have the same compounds in any of the drugs? Why is it not rational to require some clinical trial which will at least try to ensure that there is comparability?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Do the feds not do it?

Miss Stephenson: The feds do not do it.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Then what is their position?

Miss Stephenson: It is because they are not responsible for interchangeability. The member should ask his minister. They are responsible for ensuring the quality, the production of and the therapeutic effectiveness. They are not responsible for interchangeability. Ontario is, but apparently it is not willing to accept that responsibility.

I would be perfectly happy to begin the definition with the phrase, "except for those drugs currently listed in the formulary," and go on from there. That would provide the minister with the opportunity to exercise the expertise which is currently --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And compromise the patient's health.

Miss Stephenson: I am not compromising the patient's health. I said that if they have been there, have been used for a time and have not provided much in the way of reports of adverse drug reactions, or there has not been a problem with them, then I would not see why the Drug Quality and Therapeutics Committee would recommend that they should have to be tried clinically again because they have already been tried clinically.

If the minister wants to have that type of exception, he should put it in right at the beginning of the definition to read, "interchangeability, except for those drugs currently listed in the formulary, must from this day forward be subjected to these trials."

It is not a waste of money; it is a sensible and economical expenditure of money. It is the appropriate foundation for the passage of these bills. I refuse to be a party to the type of Russian roulette the minister is asking us to play.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I take exception to those remarks and to the allegation that we are being invited here to pass legislation which endangers patients' health. Those are not remarks appropriate to the member because I have found her to be generally very sensible and I know her to be a very sensitive person; but when she makes those types of allegations, those types of remarks which are based upon legislation which is merely reflecting the current status of a program that has worked well in Ontario, I do not find that is helpful to the debate whatsoever.

I also have some very real concerns about the suggestion that we use this particular amendment to do certain things to try only generics clinically. With her information, if she is being reasonable and logical, then the amendment's application to our system would mean that we should require clinical tests of every new batch of drugs which is manufactured to be used in this province, not just the generics but every batch, whether it is the originator's second batch after it has done a clinical test on the first, or whatever. That would logically be the consistent application of this, because what the member is saying would have to be applied in that sense. I do not think that is a practical way of going about this whole exercise.

10:40 a.m.

The member says it is not a waste of money, but it would spawn duplication. Again, I have to underscore, for the benefit of the members here and the public of the province, that we do have a system where people can request, under the DQTC, extra tests to ensure there is interchangeability. The member may not agree with the decisions of those people who have collectively been deliberating over the years upon these very questions. That being the case, I cannot say I have less faith in the 15 members of the DQTC than has a single member standing and saying they are not doing their job properly. It is my understanding that they have done an excellent job over the past years. The member may disagree with that, but those people who have collectively been a part of the system for a long time --

Miss Stephenson: The minister is not listening to what I said.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member said they had not ordered enough extra trials. She said they have done that 10 per cent of the time and she does not find it appropriate.

The member for York West (Mr. Leluk) said it is a joke. That group is not a joke.

Mr. Leluk: It is a joke.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member for York West thinks the DQTC is a joke. Those people have very good qualifications.

Mr. Leluk: It is a joke the way they are currently doing their testing.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think the member is being realistic when one analyses what they do and what they are required to do. There are some new people involved in this whole program and they have brought extremely good credentials to the tasks being put before them. We may end up having to disagree on that. I do not for a moment underestimate the strength of the feeling of the two opposition members who are putting the case. However, the system is one which we will continue to look at, review and make sure we expand their expertise and opportunities.

If extra tests are required, they can do them now. I will not prevent them from pursuing the best interests of the public in these cases, but we are not going to agree to pass this amendment because of the practical problems the member is inadvertently trying to put on the manufacturers of these drug therapies.

Miss Stephenson: It is unfortunate that the minister does not understand that when there is a change in the compound of a drug, when there is a change in the construction of a medication, testing should be done and, in most cases, testing is done -- not in all, but in most cases it is done when there is a change in the structure of the compound. That is the only kind of change that is necessary to undergo clinical testing.

I suggest the deputy minister would be well disposed to remember that he has been neither a pharmacist nor has he been in practice for a heck of a long time; but that is all right, neither have I. The concern the minister is expressing is specious. It is not necessary to test with every new batch. One does quality controls on every new --

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is what this is.

Miss Stephenson: That is not what I am saying. The minister knows this is not what that means. He is nitpicking to try to justify his intransigence in this matter.

The minister is saying there is already the capability of doing it but it is not being done. He is saying that just because we have not done it for 10 years we do not need to start now. I am telling him our experience over the past 10 years should direct us to move towards doing it now. That is what we have learned as a result of the policy and the kind of practice we have been carrying out. It was a good thing to do. It was a good direction to pursue, but we have learned a great deal from it.

One of the things we have learned is that interchangeable drugs are not necessarily interchangeable and that we really need to have a better foundation for trying to provide the security that is necessary to ensure there is safety for patients and some kind of reasonable support for the designation of interchangeability to be used by both physicians and pharmacists. That is a very reasonable point of view. However, it is not reasonable to suggest that this should not be done because we are going to have to do every batch of every drug. That is absolutely silly and it is not what the amendment says. It is not even what it suggests. Any reasonable person reading the amendment would understand that is not what it means. It means for introduction.

We also have said very strongly that whenever there was a change of compound the ministry should be notified immediately. The minister would not accept that one either because he said the drug companies would not do it.

Mr. Laughren: Stop nitpicking.

Miss Stephenson: If this is nitpicking, then the member is the kind of nit who is probably going to be dosed with a lethal dose of an interchangeable drug that is not interchangeable.

I am concerned that the minister thinks my arguments are overblown. I do not believe they are. I believe they are sensible, rational and based on the knowledge that we in this province have developed as a result of our experience with the policy that led to the development of this legislation.

If this legislation is right, if we are really going to be helpful to consumers and if we are really going to be concerned about patients, we will include this kind of additional security for patients in the formulary.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any comments? Does any other honourable member wish to speak to this amendment? No.

Miss Stephenson: I am truly disappointed in the minister's lack of understanding. I really am.

Mr. Chairman: There being no further comments, we appear to be ready for the question.

Miss Stephenson: Has my friendly amendment to my amendment been accepted, that we would insert, immediately following "interchangeability," the words "except for those drugs currently listed in the formulary"?

Mr. Chairman: We do not have in front of us any amendment to an amendment; only the amendment to section 1.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will accept that as having been provided as a friendly amendment.

Mr. Chairman: We are ready for the question on Miss Stephenson's amendment to section 1.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Interjections.

Miss Stephenson: I am standing up for this one. I am sorry.

11:10 a.m.

The committee divided on Miss Stephenson's amendment to section 1 of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes 32; nays 51.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. As the members leave the chamber, will they please do so quietly, as we carry on with the committee of the whole House.

The next section to be amended is section 4.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Members cannot even hear.

Shall sections 1 to 3, inclusive, stand as part of the bill?

Miss Stephenson: No. We are not agreed.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Sections 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 4:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 4(1) of Bill 55 be amended by adding at the end "provided that the person for whom the product is prescribed or the person presenting the prescription shall be informed before the prescription is dispensed and consents to the change."

Mr. Leluk: The reason for putting forward this amendment is that consumers in this province have the right to know what they are getting in the way of prescription drugs and to consent to any change the pharmacist may make in the substitution of interchangeable products. Yesterday, when I spoke on consumers' rights under subsection 4(1) of Bill 54, I read into the record a letter that was received by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) on June 17 from the Epilepsy Association, Metro Toronto. I would now like to read into the record the same letter addressed to the Minister of Health from Kate Mather, president of the board of directors of the Epilepsy Association, Metro Toronto.

"Dear Mr. Elston:

"Our association, at its most recent board of directors' meeting, examined the proposed new legislation, Bills 54 and 55, and wishes to make the following comments on behalf of our board, our members and our clients and in our capacity as a social service agency. We find the provisions of section 4 of Bill 55 unconscionable inasmuch as it appears to allow the dispensing of a substitute drug to the person presenting a prescription without informing him of the substitution. We believe that it is essential to inform the person presenting a prescription of the substitution."

They take further exception to provisions under section 8 of Bill 55 where they say "which appears to provide immunity from legal recourse to the person dispensing the substitute drug where the person substituted a drug without informing the purchaser of a substitution and where harm results to the purchaser which may be accredited to the substitution."

They say, "Clearly, sections 4, 4a and 8 of Bill 55 abrogate the right of the purchaser to (a) what drug is being administered to him and (b) to take legal action against those administering a drug to him where harm results to him."

I feel very strongly about this amendment because I believe consumers in this province have certain rights. One of those rights is to know what they are getting and to consent to any change in a prescription drug. I have a case here in point; it is an affidavit. I have a whole pile of affidavits sworn by citizens of this province. To save time, I am going to read into the record one particular affidavit that deals with the case I am making for this amendment. I am not going to mention the name.

"I..., a senior citizen of the city of Mississauga in the province of Ontario, make oath and say as follows:

"1. I am a senior citizen. I have been taking Inderal six times a day for approximately two years. I am very pleased with this medication. Although I do not now recall the name of the company that makes this product, I am sure that I did know the name at one point.

"2. I am very aware of the colour, shape and size of the Inderal pills that I take. The pills are a very light orange colour; they are quite small and round. I rely on the appearance of these pills to be able to identify them as being Inderal. Up until a few weeks ago, I could have said that I had never seen, to the best of my recollection, a pill which had the same appearance.

11:20 a.m.

"3. A few weeks ago, I went to the druggist to have my prescription for Inderal repeated. The druggist gave me what I thought and assumed was Inderal, which I took home with me. The druggist did not tell me what he gave me was not Inderal.

"4. Later, after I got home, I happened to notice the label on the container which the druggist gave me. It did not say Inderal; it had some other name on it which I did not recognize. I do not always read the labels of my medication, but I happened to notice it on this occasion. I immediately called the druggist to see if some mistake had been made in giving me the wrong medication. The druggist informed me that he had given me a different brand, but that it was the same medication.

"5. When I opened the container the druggist had given me, I noticed that the pills appeared to be the Inderal pills that I had been used to taking: they were very small, round pills and had the same light-orange colouring. If I had not happened to see the label and talk to the druggist, I know that I would have assumed, because of their colour, shape, size and appearance, that the pills the druggist had given me were Inderal.

"6. I began taking the different brand of medicine that the druggist had given to me and I noticed, after the first day of taking this brand, that I began getting headaches and feeling slightly dizzy at times. I continued taking the medicine for two or three days, but the headaches and dizziness persisted. I finally talked to the pharmacist, who called my doctor, and she told the pharmacist to take me off this brand and put me back on Inderal. My headaches and dizziness stopped soon after I started the Inderal product again.

"7. I consider myself lucky that I happened to notice the label for the medication that the druggist gave me. If I had not noticed it, which could have easily been the case, I would never have known that my medication had been changed. Because the appearance of the different brand of pills is the same, I would have simply assumed that the pills were the same Inderal that I have been taking for two years.

"8. A few years ago, when my druggist had switched me from Valium, which I had been taking for several years, to a different brand of the same medication, the new brand was a different colour. This served as a good indication to me that I was getting a different product. I have been taking this new brand ever since.

"9. It is very upsetting to me to think that a company can copy the exact same colour, size and shape of pills for the same medication. This means that if the druggist does not tell me that a switch is being made in my medicine, I may never learn that I am getting a different brand. It is important to me to know what brand I am getting, and with pills, the easiest way for me to identify them is by their appearance."

This makes a very strong case for people who frequent pharmacies to get prescription drugs to be told if a substitution of an interchangeable product is being made. They should know what they are getting, in advance of the prescription being filled, and consent to the change.

As I said, I will not read all these affidavits because it would take me some four hours to get them on the record.

On June 23 in this House, in the minister's absence, I asked a question of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) relating to consumer rights in this province. Basically, I asked whether the Premier agreed "that consumers should be told in advance by a pharmacist whenever a prescribed drug is being substituted for with an interchangeable product and that consumers have the right to know and choose what they are getting." I asked the Premier whether he would guarantee consumer rights in the final legislation.

The Premier's answer was that we had had a full discussion in this House on the matter and, he said, "I gather the discussion will continue and the member will have a perfect opportunity to put forward all his very thoughtful views at that time."

I am doing so now for the minister's benefit and for the benefit of the government. However, the Premier also stated that his government was fighting all the time for "the consumers, the people of the province, and we are glad to have this member join us" -- the government.

I saw how the government supported consumer rights with respect to subsection 4(1) of Bill 54 on the right of consumers to pay the difference in price between a list product and the product that was prescribed. Yesterday in this House, his party, along with support from his partners there, voted it down. Similarly, when I introduced that very amendment in clause-by-clause discussion before the standing committee on social development, it was voted down. So much for consumer rights under this government. It is the same for consumer protection because there is no interest.

My colleague the member for York Mills just made a very strong case for consumer protection in this province. I have to say to the minister there is no consumer protection under his government. There is no interest in protecting the consumers of this province from inferior medication and drugs, and we should all be very concerned about that. Maybe we will be concerned a year or two down the road when we start to see what happens with the health care delivery system in this province because of this government.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think we saw the wind-down of the remarks. I compliment the member on his consistency. He consistently misrepresents the position of our party, which is in favour of maintaining consistent vigilance for consumer rights and for opportunities to protect the public good. I can tell honourable members, as I did yesterday, that we will not be supporting this amendment.

I can tell members of the House that if they read the current subsection 4(1) --

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you would like to rephrase that sentence.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will withdraw the remark that offends. I apologize for that. I did not intend it to come out in that vein. I apologize to the House.

The honourable member misunderstands the position of our party and represents that understanding under that illusion. I think that clarifies the nature of the remarks made by that member when he tried to put the position of our party in this matter.

Subsection 4(1) of Bill 54 will authorize situations where the pharmacist can accept payment outside the plan if there is consent on the part of the authorized recipient. The member knows we spent considerable time in committee dealing with this item under subsection 4(1) and we built in that protection. I explained it to him then. He did not understand it, nor did he accept it. I do not expect him to change his opinion or his mind on that. That is the way it is and that is the way it will continue to be. I will not go on further other than to say that we will not be supporting this amendment.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Miss Stephenson: The government really could not care less about it. This statement that it is concerned about consumers is just an absolute sham.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is talking for the Ontario Medical Association as usual.

Miss Stephenson: No. I am not.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for York Mills and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) will please discontinue.

11:30 a.m.

Miss Stephenson: I do not talk for the OMA. I do not know who the Treasurer talks for.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that subsection 7(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) In this section, `best available price,' in respect of a particular manufacturer's drug product in a particular dosage form and strength for which a prescription is dispensed, means the lowest price, calculated per gram, millilitre, capsule, tablet or other appropriate unit for which that product in that dosage form and strength can be purchased in Canada for wholesale or retail sale in Ontario,

"(a) as determined by the minister from such sampling as the minister considers appropriate; or

"(b) as estimated by the minister, if the minister considers the information reasonably available to the minister is insufficient for the purpose of ascertaining the best available price,

"which price shall be prescribed by the regulations and, in calculating that price, the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall deduct the value of any price reduction granted by the manufacturer or wholesaler or their representatives in the form of rebates, discounts, refunds, free goods or any other benefits of a like nature."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is a companion amendment to that introduced and passed yesterday in Bill 54. It is to the same effect and adds a couple of items, such as tablet and appropriate unit size, but also gives the authority for sampling that is appropriate to ascertain best available price and allows the minister to estimate the price if the information available is insufficient to come to a categorical and conclusive decision with respect to best available price.

Mr. Leluk: I have an amendment to move to the minister's amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for York Mills wish to speak on this before the amendment is put? Does she wish to speak before the member for York West puts his amendment to the amendment?

Miss Stephenson: Yes, because I would like to remind the honourable members of the third party that they argued long and hard and worked diligently for the section of the bill that is currently present. It does need to be amended by adding "tablet" -- there is no doubt about that -- but yesterday, to provide for whatever kind of subterranean agreement there is in this House, the members of the NDP turned their backs on the concern they previously had for establishing best available price and provided for the minister total licence in terms of developing the price that is to be used in this area of price setting for the purposes of reimbursement of pharmacists.

It is necessary to make it parallel in this piece of legislation. The minister is overstepping the bounds established in committee by careful examination and diligent work by the member for Windsor-Riverside in the development of this section in the act. I would like everyone to know that the NDP has turned its back on that activity and now is voting in a different direction.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Although I cannot address the specific allegation of the member with respect to the NDP, I can say to the members of this committee that we have accepted the will of the majority of the committee when they amended the legislation to provide for best available price. As I said yesterday when addressing the issue of amending Bill 54, in my opinion this will make the system more workable. We may disagree on that, but we on this side accept the will of the majority of the elected members of this House, and we are going to make best available price work as best we can. This will help make the best-available-price system work.

I can tell the honourable member that, although she may be back to back with the third party at the moment, this situation will enhance the operation of this program rather than detract from it. I have to indicate to the House that the member and I have mild patches of disagreement when we discuss options and opportunities in summing up this legislation.

Mr. Sheppard: I would like to make a few comments on the bill. I see that both the minister and the deputy minister are here this morning. I received a letter from one of my pharmacists who is very concerned about Bills 54 and 55. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read it into the record. It says:

"As our voice in parliament, I am begging you to speak out against the passage of Bill 54 and Bill 55. As you are aware, these bills were ill conceived and poorly constructed when introduced last September" --

Mr. Chairman: Order. I believe that is a little off topic on Bill 55, which is what we have in front of us.

Mr. Leluk moves that Bill 55, subsection 7(1), be amended by adding after the word "Canada" in line 8 the following, "from a wholesaler or director as the regulations prescribe," and striking out "for wholesale or" from line 8.

Mr. Leluk: The intent of this amendment is to preserve the present indirect and direct listing of drug products so that all pharmacies can continue to utilize the necessary services provided by drug wholesalers. We believe the ministry shares the pharmacists' views that the wholesaling function is necessary and vital to the drug distribution system in this province.

Without our proposed amendment, it has been drawn to our attention and to the government's attention by the drug wholesalers that the present wording could render the entire wholesale function noncompetitive. As I stated yesterday when a similar amendment was introduced to Bill 54, in the short run this might mean some marginal savings on some drugs, but in the long run we believe it will mean the demise of the community pharmacy as a viable entity.

We took the maintenance of the indirect and direct distinction for granted and therefore did not mention it in previous submissions. This is a very important amendment.

11:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I did yesterday, I rise to indicate that this amendment is not acceptable to us. As I said to the members who were here yesterday, the style of wording would enshrine the problem of price spreading in the system. We have all set our minds to dealing with that issue. As a result, our party will not support this amendment to the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that clause 7(1)(a) of Bill 55 be amended by adding the word "reasonably" after the word "minister" in line 2, and that clause 7(1)(b) be amended by adding the word "reasonably" before the word "estimated" in line 1 and striking out "reasonably" before the word "available" in line 3.

Mr. Leluk: I believe this amendment reflects more accurately the section.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again, this amendment parallels those that were put yesterday to a similar section, and my comments remain parallel in nature. We will not support this amendment to the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment to the amendment to subsection 7(1) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Elston's amendment to subsection 7(1) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 7(2)(a) of Bill 55 be amended by adding after the words "interchangeable product" in line 1, the following, "and the product is a listed drug product as defined in the Ontario Drug Benefit Act, 1986."

Mr. Leluk: The proposed government amendment to subsection 7(2) is not acceptable or desirable because it excludes single-source products from the best-available-price requirement to the detriment of the public; there will be neither uniformity of prices nor lists of prices for single-source drugs. Moreover, while we believe it is not intended, the result of deleting clause 7(2)(a) is to preclude pharmacists from charging anything for the drug component where noninterchangeable products are involved.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is the amendment that was suggested to us through the correspondence of the college, I believe, and deals with the items listed in the Ontario Drug Benefit Act. Coming to grips with the correspondence that has come in, we are not unhappy with this proposed amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The original suggestion in the list of amendments I provided was that I would move the deletion of clause 7(2)(a), but I will not be moving that amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 7(3) of Bill 55 be struck out and replaced with the following:

"No person shall charge more for supplying an interchangeable product and a drug product specified in subsection 7(2)(a) above pursuant to a prescription than the sum of,

"(a) the base price determined under subsection (2);

"(b) the percentage of that price, not less than 10 per cent and not greater than 20 per cent, that is prescribed by the regulations; and

"(c) that person's usual and customary dispensing fee."

Mr. Leluk: This amendment makes it clear that specific amounts are not required in the regulations. Alternatively, we suggest the words "prescribed in the regulations" be changed to "permitted by the regulations." This is to make it clear that specific dollar figures need not be mentioned in the regulations.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am trying to analyse the difference between the current subsection 3 and the member's subsection 3. I am not certain he is accomplishing what is needed to be accomplished by providing an amendment.

I acknowledge that we had understood there would be a need to provide in the regulations circumstances in which a greater amount might be provided, but we felt that regulation could be used to provide for that coverage. I do notice there is a difference in description of the change from a drug product to an interchangeable product, which is not defined.

I am a little confused by what the member is trying to accomplish, but I think he may be providing us with a little flexibility. Again, there does not appear to be any need for the changes in those terms. It may be that if he had not accomplished his amendment to the previous subsection, it would be required. At this stage, I do not think we need his amendment to subsection 3, particularly when we are moving that greater amounts may be set out under regulations in our amendment.

Mr. Leluk: I repeat what I stated earlier. The amendment makes it clear that specific amounts are not required in the regulations. Alternatively, this is to make it clear that specific dollar figures need not be mentioned in the regulations.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

11:50 a.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Elston moves that clause 7(3)(c) of the bill be amended by adding at the end thereof, "unless a greater amount is provided for in the regulations."

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is in recognition of the fact that there may be circumstances in which a greater amount may be required to be paid. We require some flexibility in this legislation, and we are prepared under regulation, in consultation with the college, to develop those circumstances in which a greater amount might be appropriate.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: In the interest of time, can we agree to dispense with repetition of amendments as a matter of course unless somebody requests that the amendments be repeated?

The Deputy Chairman: Is it agreed that the chair dispense with the reading of amendments?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that Bill 55, section 7, be amended by adding a new subsection as follows:

"(4) Notwithstanding clause 7(3)(c), a fee other than the usual and customary fee may be charged in those circumstances set out in the regulations."

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We just amended clause 7(3)(c) to provide for the very same thing. I presume the honourable member will be content if we leave clause 7(3)(c) with that amendment rather than proposing another section and will withdraw his proposed amendment.

Mr. Leluk: I will withdraw the amendment.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

On section 8:

Miss Stephenson: I do not have an amendment to propose, but I want to comment that the members of this House should be aware that as a result of section 8, the consumer of drug products in this province who has been subjected to substitution and has a problem therewith is going to be left entirely on his or her own to pursue whatever course of action the courts may deem necessary. This section absolves everybody of any type of responsibility for the potentially irresponsible act that may have been perpetrated as a result of Bill 54 or Bill 55.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This is a reflection of the current practice under section 155. The member knows that, I know that, everybody knows that. Under section 155, if the member wants to deal with that, it is there and was requested by the association. It is part of the current system, and we are perpetuating that system in this legislation. I thought the member would want to acknowledge that. My concern is that we continue that. If she wishes to vote against that section, that is her privilege and appropriate action if she so desires. We think it is an important part of this legislation.

Miss Stephenson: I simply commented upon the fact that in the past, with the policy that was established for the purposes of attempting to ensure there was a good direction to be pursued, I can understand it was necessary to function in that way. In this legislated, mandated situation required by the government, there is no increased protection for the consumer. If the minister and the government were really concerned about consumer protection, they would have done something in this section to ensure that at least the minister would take some liability for it since he is the one who is mandating the whole thing. It is an increased risk for the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Elston: Again, the member is not familiar with the current situation. I advise her to review the pharmacy section, subsection 155(4), of the Health Disciplines Act, take a look at what that provides and be aware of the fact that there is a continuation of the current circumstances. I am sure the member would be happy to agree that the regime is being continued in those circumstances in this new legislation and to acknowledge that it is necessary.

Miss Stephenson: There is a very significant change which the minister does not seem to realize. He is bringing in legislation that makes it law that what was policy in the past will be mandatory in a great number of circumstances. That is a change of situation. I guess if one is a lawyer, one is able to talk around the subject to convince oneself that there is no change at all. There is a very significant change, but the minister is not changing the whole aspect of liability, which I would have thought he would have considered seriously.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall section 8 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Section 8 agreed to.

Sections 9 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 14:

The Deputy Chairman: I believe the member for York West has an amendment to section 14.

Mr. Leluk: I am going to withdraw my amendment to subsection 14(1), because it provides for the regulation-making authority for subsection 7(1), which was defeated earlier.

The Deputy Chairman: You are withdrawing your amendment to subsection 14(1)?

Mr. Leluk: I am withdrawing the amendment that would have added a new clause (e).

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that clause 14(1)(d) of Bill 55 be struck out and that clause 14(1)(e) be renumbered clause 14(1)(d).

12 noon

Hon. Mr. Elston: We do not have a clause (d) at the moment.

The Deputy Chairman: Clause 14(1)(d).

Hon. Mr. Elston: That is correct. We go to clause (c) in the present bill. In the present bill, we do not have a clause (d). There is no clause (d) under subsection 14(1). It would seem that we do not need that amendment at the moment.

Mr. Leluk: It should be clause 14(2)(d).

The Deputy Chairman: Would you read the amendment again?

Hon. Mr. Elston: If there is no amendment to subsection 14(1), perhaps I can move my amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Elston moves that subsection 14(1) of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(d) prescribing circumstances in which persons may charge more than their usual and customary dispensing fees."

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is necessary to have this to fall in line with what we have just accomplished under clause 7(3)(c).

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 14(2) of the bill be amended by adding a new clause (g) as follows:

"prescribing the circumstances in which a fee, different from the usual and customary fee, may be charged."

We are supposed to do clause 14(2)(d). The amendment also reads that clause 14(2)(d) be struck out and the subsection be renumbered.

Mr. Leluk: Give us a moment. I withdraw the amendment striking out clause 14(2)(d). That was not intended. I would like to read into the record the amended subsection 14(2) with the newly added clause (g) that was just read into the record.

Hon. Mr. Elston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I believe the essence of that amendment would be similar to that which was moved under clause 14(1)(d) and passed by the Legislature just a few moments ago.

Miss Stephenson: The difference is that it would require --

The Deputy Chairman: Order, please. I will read the amendment again.

Mr. Leluk moves that subsection 14(2) be amended by adding a new clause (g) as follows:

"(g) prescribing the circumstances in which a fee different from the usual customary fee may be charged."

Miss Stephenson: The object of the amendment is to ensure that although the Lieutenant Governor in Council has the capability of ensuring there can be a fee that is different, the responsibility for making the designation and the circumstances specifically rest with the Ontario College of Pharmacists in the initial phase. It is the college's responsibility to determine the areas of professional expertise which would lead to a flexibility in the area of the usual and customary dispensing fee. As a result of discussing that with the minister, the Lieutenant Governor in Council would then have the capability to vary the fee the minister has already enacted in clause 14(1)(d).

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will not be supporting this amendment. We believe there is adequate opportunity to set out those circumstances and do what is required under those conditions under subsection 14(1).

Miss Stephenson: It was specifically discussed in committee and agreed to by all parties that there were certain areas of activity which were the responsibility of the college. The designation of the professional responsibilities is certainly the college's area of expertise and concern. It was for that reason this amendment was introduced, because this is most certainly an assessment of and an evaluation of, or a determination of, the professional expertise which is required to provide a variance of the fee the minister may recommend to the Lieutenant Governor in Council. That is not a ministerial responsibility, it would appear, or a Lieutenant Governor in Council responsibility but a professional responsibility of the Ontario College of Pharmacists.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think the college wishes to have this particular amendment passed either. I do not wish it. We can cover the situation which has been outlined by the honourable member. We are not going to support the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Leluk's amendment to subsection 14(2) will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 14, as amended, agreed to.

Section 15 agreed to.

On section 16:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk moves that section 16 be amended by adding at the end:

"But if no such date is proclaimed to bring this act into force before the 31st day of December, 1986, this bill shall come into force on the 31st day of December, 1986."

12:10 p.m.

Mr. Leluk: These bills have been languishing for nine months in this Legislature, having been introduced on November 7, and the concern is that they be proclaimed as soon as possible. What we are trying to ensure with this amendment is that if they are not enforced before December 31, 1986, then the bill shall come into force on that day.

Hon. Mr. Elston: We will not be supporting this amendment, which is the same as one that was proposed for Bill 54. We intend to implement these bills and we do not see the necessity of putting a date on the legislation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Will the minister give the Legislature any indication of when the formulary will be ready for printing and publishing?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sorry, I was distracted. I think we will be putting this into effect in the fall. We hope to get the regulations put together so we can do it no later than November or December 1986. We anticipate it being operating and functioning early in 1987.

Miss Stephenson: In that case, is the minister going to make the pharmacists of this province wait until November or December for a modification of the dispensing fee and of the reimbursement which is now almost two years out of date, or is he going to distribute the formulary with the new price lists to the pharmacists on August 1, as has been suggested? It has been ready now for about six months.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member knows that question deals with the previous piece of legislation we dealt with, but I will tell her that we are moving to share information with and are receiving information from members of the association and others to put a new formulary in place. However, when we are dealing with new legislation, we also have to make sure our regulations are in place. That requires us to ensure that the regulations are workable, which means the proclamation of this will have to be postponed a little. However, we are looking at putting out that formulary as soon as possible.

Miss Stephenson: The minister is saying the pharmacists will have to wait until November or December for the modification of the fee and the prices.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is asleep again.

Miss Stephenson: No, I am not asleep. The minister just said he had to redraft all the regulations to do this. He did not answer my question.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I said "the proclamation." The member should understand that the regulations for the new bill must be in place and must be workable as well. I said clearly we are moving now to put in a new formulary.

Miss Stephenson: I asked the minister how long are the pharmacists going to have to wait for the modification of a reimbursement that has been dependent upon the distribution of the new price list. Is it going to be November or December? That is what I asked. It was not any more complicated than that. Can the minister not answer? If he cannot, then he should say so.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not wish to accuse the member, but I have said we are moving as quickly as we can to put the new formula into effect. We have been working with association members to do that. I am saying I do not have a specific date at this moment. We are working towards the August date.

Miss Stephenson: Is it going to be November or December?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to this legislation, we are going to proclaim it as soon as we can after regulations are put into effect. We expect that to be in the fall.

Miss Stephenson: I simply asked, is it going to be August 1, is it going to be November or December, or is it going to be somewhere between? Can the minister not answer that?

An hon. member: He does not know.

Miss Stephenson: Okay.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Leluk has moved an amendment to section 16.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 16 agreed to.

Section 17 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

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

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved second reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act.

Hon. Mr. Elston: My comments are very few indeed.

This bill has been long awaited by the College of Nurses of Ontario, so that it can deal with its disciplinary proceedings in a more expeditious manner. We will see an increase in the number of members sitting as members of the college, and this will help deal with the considerable backlog of cases.

We saw the introduction of a similar piece of legislation a number of years ago. Unfortunately, on account of circumstances beyond its control, the Legislative Assembly was not able to deal with the bill at an earlier date. I think we are all anxious to see this legislation pass so that we can allow the college to perform its very important public function.

Mr. Andrewes: I would like to indicate our support for this bill. The minister is correct. I believe the previous member for Kingston and the Islands, Mr. Norton, introduced this bill originally. We have indicated to the minister and to the college that we would support this piece of legislation.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: There are certain things I would like before we pass this bill. However, we are in the spirit of passing things quickly today. It has been three years or whatever and complaint hearings are now being scheduled into 1987. The college and the nursing profession will be very happy that we were able to deal with this bill before adjournment today. We will be supporting it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PUBLIC SERVICE PAY EQUITY ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved second reading of Bill 105, An Act to provide Pay Equity for Employees in Predominantly Female Groups of Jobs in the Public Service.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am delighted this afternoon to introduce for second reading this legislation which is an act to provide pay equity for employees in the public sector. When I introduced this bill for first reading, I explained why the government had embarked on this most important undertaking. I indicated at the time that this legislation represents but the first step in a process designed to achieve full equity for women in the work force.

12:20 p.m.

As both the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and I noted, when we jointly commenced the process to establish pay equity in Ontario this past November, the most sensible and expeditious way of proceeding was to embark on a pay equity initiative in the public sector as a matter of first priority and, simultaneously, to undertake a consultative effort regarding implementation of pay equity in the broader public sector and in the private sector.

Certain differences in respect of the characteristics of the public and private sectors strongly suggested that implementation of pay equity might most appropriately require adoption of separate and specialized approaches in the two cases. A number of important factors collectively contributed to this assessment. First, the wage gap for the economy as a whole is almost twice as large as for the public service alone, suggesting there is a much larger problem in need of resolution in the other sector.

Second, public service institutions in general have a larger and more occupationally diverse work force, with implications for the nature of the pay equity challenge and the resources available to deal with it in the public service.

Third, the widespread coverage of collective bargaining in the public service permits, indeed requires, reliance on the bargaining process for implementing pay equity. Such coverage is much less significant elsewhere. Moreover, the multiplicity of separate bargaining units in some establishments outside the public service poses a greater co-ordination problem for pay equity job comparison purposes.

Fourth, the reconciliation of market-oriented and pay equity requirements and their cost implications represents a more difficult challenge outside the public service than within it.

Finally, practical experience with pay equity programs in other jurisdictions, which can be drawn upon as a useful guide for developing an Ontario program, primarily pertains to the public sector.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that has been put before you and before the House recognizes the needs of employees in the public service as well as the structural problems that need to be addressed in an initiative as complex as pay equity. The bill is long and detailed as it must be in order to respond fully to the many issues and concerns that have been raised in our process of consultation with the affected parties.

Before commenting on the highlights of the legislation, I want again to pay tribute to those who have been involved in the consultation process. It represents a high-water mark in the use of extensive consultation with both labour and management groups in crafting legislation that will fundamentally affect the conduct of their employment relationship.

My officials and those in other ministries met on a frequent basis with representatives of the unions and employer agencies covered by this legislation to ensure that all of the relevant issues were fully canvassed. As a result, we have a bill that is as comprehensive as possible and one which enjoys a wide degree of acceptance and support from those who are charged with its ongoing implementation.

This high measure of support has already been evident in reaction to the bill following first reading. While we have received a number of comments and useful suggestions for improvement, I am pleased to say that as a general proposition Bill 105 has been well received by both labour and management. On an issue as thorny as pay equity, this in itself is no small achievement.

The comments we have received thus far fall into two categories, the first of which deals with the question of coverage. There are a number of groups, particularly labour and women's groups, whose members wish to be included under the legislation. I can sympathize with their desires and I am grateful for the vote of confidence, in a sense, that they have given to this legislation. Nevertheless, as I indicated at the beginning of these remarks, there are sound reasons for proceeding separately in the public service on the one hand and the private and broader public sector on the other. The government intends to continue on this course. I do not consider it to be an insubstantial undertaking on the part of this government to implement pay equity for almost 80,000 employees as a first step of a multi-step process.

The second category of comment we have received relates to the several technical aspects of the bill involving suggestions designed to help the legislation more precisely achieve its intent. The comments have been useful and the government will be proposing some amendments of its own when the bill comes before committee. In general, I want to submit to the Legislature that the structure and substance of the bill have met with favourable comment and I am pleased to put this bill before the House for approval in principle.

Let me review some of the highlights of the legislation.

First, the general structure of the bill: It comprises a number of parts reflecting, in the main, the need to tailor the development and implementation of pay equity in the public service to the nature of collective bargaining relationships that are already in place.

The bill begins by establishing some general principles. Part I introduces a number of key concepts in the definition section, outlines the scope of the coverage and articulates the purpose of the legislation. The essential charging provisions identify what is required to achieve pay equity and indicate the components to be included in pay equity plans.

Part II of the bill also contains implementation principles of general application relating to such issues as exclusions from coverage, prohibition on pay reductions and the relationship of pay equity plans to collective agreements. Moreover, there is a detailed prescription of the implementation timetable that is to be achieved. In the three subsequent parts of the bill, the obligations of the employers and bargaining units are identified with regard to the development and implementation of pay equity plans.

The staging of pay equity implementation recognizes that it will be most expeditious to utilize existing bargaining relationships in the first instance in developing pay equity plans. These parts of the bill also provide for arbitration in the event that the employer and employees cannot agree on the plan.

In addition to recourse to arbitration, the bill also mandates the establishment of the Pay Equity Commission, which will have two main functions. It will monitor the development and implementation of pay equity plans by employers and unions to ensure that they conform with requirements of the act; as well, it will be empowered to receive and investigate complaints regarding the conduct of the parties during this phase.

After implementation of the pay equity plans is concluded, the commission will continue to be able to receive complaints about new compensation practices that may be introduced that have the effect of subverting pay equity. The legislation thus departs from the traditional reactive complaint-based model in favour of an obligation on the parties to introduce pay equity on a proactive basis.

Within the general framework I have described, the bill contains a number of important specific features to which I want to draw the attention of the House. First, it focuses exclusively on redressing gender-based pay discrimination. Potential beneficiaries will be those employees working in predominantly female occupations, most, but not all, of whom will be women.

As a threshold condition for the purposes of this legislation, a predominantly female group of jobs will be a group in which 60 per cent or more of the positions are occupied by women. Pay equity comparisons for these jobs will be undertaken with reference to predominantly male groups of jobs, those in which 70 per cent or more of the positions are occupied by men. The use of different ratios for the two gender predominance tests simply reflects differences in the relative proportions of men and women in the overall public service work force. I believe the figures are 42 or 43 per cent women and 57 or 58 per cent men.

To avoid the problems that arbitrary numerical cutoff points may create, the bill does provide for the designation of additional groups as either predominantly female or predominantly male by agreement between the parties, by regulation or by the employer, subject to approval by the Pay Equity Commission.

The targeting of pay equity adjustments to predominantly female groups of jobs will ensure that the benefits deriving from the new program will be directed to those who can be said to have suffered most in the past from gender-based pay discrimination. It is estimated that approximately 29,000 employees, more than 40 per cent of the total public service work force, will benefit in some measure from this new program.

The bill contemplates development of pay equity plans in a series of steps, commencing with the selection of a gender-neutral job comparison scheme and concluding with the implementation of any necessary pay adjustments following application of the job comparison scheme to the various job positions covered.

While the procedure is necessarily quite time-consuming, our determination to minimize delay is reflected in the fact that the bill establishes specific time limits for each stage in the overall process. We anticipate the entire process of developing and implementing pay equity in the Ontario public service will be completed within four years. No attempt has been made to seek to impose a particular type of job comparison or job evaluation scheme on employers or employees.

Where collective bargaining is well established, and it is in these situations, the parties directly involved are in the best possible position to select the comparison scheme most suited to the job positions under examination. The legislation we are proposing has been designed to interfere with collective bargaining only to the most minimal extent consistent with ensuring that our basic principles in developing pay equity are observed.

This legislation contains some general guidance on this question. For example, it requires that the value of the job be assessed with reference to four basic criteria; namely, the skill, effort and responsibility associated with those jobs and the conditions under which the work is performed. It spells out the test to be met in determining whether pay equity has been achieved. It will occur when the pay for the representative job level in a predominantly female group of jobs is at least equal to the pay in a comparably valued job level in a predominantly male group of jobs.

It is important for the House to note that I have used the words "comparably valued" rather than "identically valued," recognizing that situations may arise where job values are clearly comparable or substantially the same without necessarily being strictly identical.

12:30 p.m.

The government visualizes that pay equity plans will become an integral element in the collective bargains struck by employer and employee representatives negotiating in the public service. In situations where the respective language of a collective agreement and a pay equity plan covering the same group of employees appears inconsistent, the proposed pay equity statute resolves such conflict in favour of the pay equity plan itself, the terms of which will prevail over those of the collective agreement.

One other important principle is that equal value comparisons will be limited to the employer's own establishment. In most collective bargaining situations, the scope of the collective agreement is typically confined to one establishment in a similar fashion.

The bill also establishes a minimum level for annual pay equity adjustments equivalent to not less than one per cent of overall payroll for those employees covered by the pay equity plan in question. The first pay equity adjustments are expected to be made about two years after proclamation, and they will continue until all pay inequities are eliminated. The legislation will not be retroactive prior to proclamation.

Wage reductions for any employees as a means of achieving compliance with these statutory requirements will be prohibited. As a result, where existing pay levels are not in conformity with the pay equity standards established by the proposed bill, workers in the underpaid job positions will be guaranteed an actual wage increase resulting from application of the statutory scheme.

There are a number of other details of the legislation we could review at length. I look forward to elaborating on those during the committee part of this process. While a great deal of hard work and careful consideration has gone into the drafting of this comprehensive piece of legislation, no doubt there are areas where the bill can be improved. However, I am confident the legislation before the House now will achieve our most important goal; namely, the provision of full pay equity for all women who work in the Ontario public service.

Ms. Fish: I want to say at the outset that I am delighted this bill has finally been called for second reading debate in the House. We have been waiting for some considerable time to be able to deal with this, because the second reading debate and discussion at this level precedes another terribly important and critical phase for the bill, which is its referral to committee and the opportunity for hearings and public deputations.

I am particularly concerned that the hearings to be undertaken on this bill should look at, among other things, the total scope of the legislation before us, the question of whether we should confine ourselves to what my friend across the way seemed to describe as the narrow public service.

The first question that must be asked by any member of this Legislature, and it has been asked by a number of groups that have reviewed it since the introduction of this bill on April 22, is who is to achieve some protection under this bill. Who has the right to come forward and expect to be covered by this bill with its protections, many of which we hope to strengthen? What categories of employees will be covered?

My friend across the way trumpets with some pride the fact that a bill has been brought in that will affect a total of 76,000 employees. I reply that it is a good start, but a start is all it is. I am not at all satisfied that that is the limited place where we should start.

If we reflect a little bit on the basic understanding and definitions that have been developed, not so much in a legal sense but in the sense of practice and the key and critical decisions that have been taken over the years, we can readily see in the past eight or 10 years that an understanding of the public sector has gone far beyond the narrow focus of 80,000 employees directly employed by the Ontario government or what I might describe as its most immediate agencies.

The 76,000 employees covered by this bill will include a fairly narrow band of employees whom I think this House has already begun to identify as being properly within the public sector. Let us review them for a moment. They include employees of the ministries of the government, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Niagara Parks Commission, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, the Ontario Housing Corp., the Toronto Area Transit Authority, the Workers' Compensation Board and so on. In other words, the target is direct employees of the provincial government and its immediate agencies.

That is not the test this Legislature applied when other aspects directly affecting the wages of those in the public sector were dealt with only a few years ago. At a time of a very different economy, at a time of very different financial pressures on the government of the day and on the province as a whole, at a time of a very different circumstance with unemployment and an exceedingly deep recession, it was felt necessary to bring in wage restraint legislation. It was a difficult and onerous move, a move that is done in only the rarest of occasions, but brought in it was. That legislation was directed to the public sector, restraining the wages and controlling and narrowing the options for employees in the public sector.

Because it interrupted some of the collective bargaining that was under way and imposed a cap, a limit and a standard, on occasion it had the potential to delay, by virtue of the conditions we faced at the time, the thrusts and the moves that would affect the position of employees one to another, directly in equal pay for equal work and indirectly in equal pay for work of equal value.

The definition used at that time, when in its wisdom the Legislature was restraining wages, was a broad public sector that encompassed some 650,000 employees of the province, a public sector that instead of touching upon 29,000 female-dominated jobs, which is the current estimate of the case in this bill, touched upon 224,000 female jobs. That broadened scope would include the civil service and all crown agencies; for example, Ontario Hydro, the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and so forth, the universities, the hospitals, the municipalities, the school boards and provincially funded agencies and organizations.

It is my view and the view of my party that if it is appropriate to define "public sector" in a broad way when one is restraining, at a minimum it most surely is appropriate to define "public sector" in that same broad way when one is providing fundamental and basic protection from discrimination against unequal pay for work of equal value. We hope that this issue will be touched upon, as will so many others, in the course of the formal hearings that will follow this debate and that appropriate amendments will be brought forward to deal with the bill in this regard.

I might touch upon what I viewed as bordering on a threat offered by some ministers of the crown when they answered questions dealing with the appropriateness of amendments that might touch upon broadening the scope of this legislation: to wit, the suggestion that the legislation would be substantially delayed, if not potentially abandoned entirely, should there be successful amendments to broaden the protections to be provided by this bill and to broaden the categories of employees to be protected under it.

At this point, I think it is appropriate for me to say that this is callous politics in the extreme. Dealing with legislation and amendments is something this House has done since its inception. Being able to process amendments is nothing new to us. It is nothing new to legislative counsel. It is nothing new to the staff of the Ministry of the Attorney General residing in each of the ministries across this government.

12:40 p.m.

If the rest of the bill has been properly thought out and if the conditions and grounds are carefully provided to introduce equal pay for work of equal value within the more narrow public sector, then the application of those protections and careful groundwork and criteria to that broader public sector restrained only a few short years ago is surely not beyond the competence of the staff who would have to provide the necessary advice and afford the necessary implementation.

I hope the opportunity here as we proceed in dealing with this piece of legislation will be to deal at the outset with the first and most fundamental question of who is protected in the broad categories and afford an opportunity for us to introduce a degree of consistency to ensure that those who had been restrained only a few short years ago are those who, at the very outset and from the very first, will similarly be provided protection by this bill.

On a related question, in addition to the more immediate definition, I and my party are troubled by the question of specific exception, particularly the exception that looks to those working within a rehabilitation program. I hope that in the course of examining the details of this legislation, as we will, we will see amendments come forward that will ensure this exception is deleted and those who work within rehabilitation programs will be included within the scope.

I say that because many who work within rehabilitation programs are already suffering a degree of disability. Very often they are there as a result of perhaps mental or physical handicap in the course of rehabilitation work, in the course of learning to care for themselves and to be at some point fully reintegrated into the work force, or perhaps there are others simply seeking at every opportunity to stretch or expand their abilities to be full members of our society.

It seems to me we should be prepared, as we were in the course of establishing the rehabilitation programs in the first place, to move from there to the kind of protection that I think this act would envision when we are considering the fundamental question of whether one ought to be discriminated against by being paid unequally for work of equal value. If the principle of the bill establishes that equal pay for equal value is the direction in which this Legislature wants to proceed because it is in keeping with the fundamental tenets of fairness, justice and equity that we hold dear in our society, then I believe we must be prepared to afford the extension in all areas possible and reasonable within the scope of the intention of public sector.

Similarly, I am particularly troubled by the possibility of exception for the category of labour shortage. In the main, the labour shortage issue, with unequal pay resulting, has tended to occur within those areas that have also tended to be male-dominated. If we are trying to introduce again that fundamental tenet of equity and fairness in the course of dealing with pay that is provided to employees in comparable areas who are undertaking work of equal value, I believe we must be very careful when we are looking at the question of exception on labour shortage. We must be prepared to pierce the veil of why that exception is there and why that shortage might be there and to give some thought to the degree to which continuing that exception might indirectly strengthen an unfortunate systemic discrimination.

One of the questions that occurs to me at the outset is whether there is a shortage that may result from a particular technical training. The question that comes to mind is the degree of opportunity, access and participation in training programs and the encouragement that might be afforded to those who would go into them. It raises questions about the structure of our educational system. None of these questions is new or unique, as we are dealing in many areas and in many ways with the very subtle forms of discrimination that we now find in the middle 1980s.

I am put in mind of the initiatives such as Open Doors and others to try to encourage, through all the study areas and training areas, a better representation of both young men and women within our society as well as those of minority groups. The reason for that is not some magic in and of itself. The reason is that training opens other doors for employment opportunities. It opens doors to look at career options and career choices.

If we are in the business of trying to encourage that, we should at the same time look at the other end and ensure that perhaps prior to the time when encouragement was made, prior to the distribution of those programs being broadly available, or for whatever reason, we do not inadvertently afford a penalization to those who were unable to proceed through some of those sorts of skills acquisition efforts that may have created a short or temporary labour shortage.

That is something that has to be examined very carefully. In the course of the examination, we should be prepared to question why there was a labour shortage and to understand whether responding to that as an exception does not simply reinforce another pattern of unequal pay for work of equal value.

It is also important to look at the question of the numerical cutoffs. That was addressed a few moments ago by the minister when he was speaking about the minimum participation rates that are divided by gender in job categories. I understand what the minister suggested in those cutoffs, but if we are looking for pay equity through a system, and just as I am concerned about a narrow definition of the scope of the bill or of exceptions that might be built in by virtue of the particular program, I am extremely concerned about those who may ford themselves on the wrong end of equity in their wages by virtue of simply being in a job category that does not meet the numerical cutoff requirement by gender.

It is my view that this again is something that can be dealt with more carefully as we proceed into clause-by-clause debate. It would be my view that we should initially remove those cutoffs and say that if it is pay equity we seek, then it must surely be pay equity across all job classifications and stand there, permitting the protection to extend to all our employees. That approach is in keeping with the fundamental approach that says if it is worth doing, it is worth doing right at the outset. I hope we can look at that side as well.

12:50 p.m.

If the necessary groundwork has been done on careful implementation -- what is required to receive a complaint on unequal pay for work of equal value, to respond to an expressed concern and to be able to examine the relationship of job categories -- then we can do so for all job categories. We do not need to apply another artificial barrier in the way of our employees, whom we are trying to afford a correction where the system requires a correction by virtue of decisions in the past or simply the way historical rates have extended themselves into the present.

It is also important to look at the effect the bill may have in terms of compliance and sanction. I am troubled that there appears to be very little in the way of sanction. I cannot find within the bill the clear and explicit statement that the payment of unequal wages for work of equal value is discriminatory. My initial reaction is that such a statement, found as it is in Quebec and elsewhere, forms the basis for action coming forward by those who feel themselves to be in receipt of unequal pay. It will also form the base of action that will be tied in a complementary way to sanctions that can then be applied against those who, down the road, fail to bring themselves into accordance with this bill.

I hope we will have the opportunity of examining that, perhaps the specific wording I have just made note of, and there is nothing very original in utilizing that wording. I made mention of the fact that it is used already in Quebec. I am reminded it is also used at the federal level in the existing human rights legislation. Having had a recent opportunity to review, among other things, some questions associated with the Ontario Human Rights Code, I do not recall finding similar wording there. Since we have an opportunity to proceed in respect of Bill 105, which begins with the premise that a public sector -- I argue a broader public sector -- is the place to begin, it seems to me we must also attend to providing that kind of clear statement directly within Bill 105.

Let me move for a moment to the question of what happens when there is noncompliance. What happens in a circumstance where there is a finding that there has been unequal pay and a corrective measure is not taken? The current bill provides for orders to be filed with the Supreme Court in the case of noncompliance. I recognize the severity of those orders, and I recognize the authority of the Supreme Court.

My concern is that there should be a recognition that engaging in unequal pay for work of equal value is discriminatory, that it should be stated as such and that clearly there should be sanctions for those who do not comply. We should give consideration to, among other things, the possibility of fines for noncompliance on the part of employers or to some other more specific sanctions that might accompany an order to correct, particularly when there has been noncompliance. We have done that in a number of other areas. We have other legislation before this House, or at least it has been introduced, that moves in a similar fashion. As we look at this question of pay equity, we should be prepared to look at the possibility of substantially strengthening provisions for sanctions for those who do not comply.

This raises the question of observing the degree of compliance that may be undertaken by any employer covered by the bill when a finding has been made and it is clear there has been a problem with comparability in wages that have not been paid when there has been a roughly equal value of the jobs. The bill provides for what I would call an initial monitoring vehicle, a monitoring to look at getting the system to a point where it pretty well achieves pay equity as it might be understood and as it might be achieved through bargaining or stepped or phased programs.

I would say on that, as I said initially on the scope of the bill as presented, it is a good start, but that start can be broadened. I believe it should be broadened in an area of suggesting that there be an opportunity to do some monitoring within the period where pay equity has been achieved, to follow up on a regular or perhaps even random basis to review and assess what is happening down the road.

I recognize I am talking about things that are down the road, that are a few years in the future for us. However, that is the sort of thing legislation ought to be able to do. It ought to be able to take hold of an immediate problem and find the right kinds of ways of solving it in the immediate sense, but at the point where we think we have achieved pay equity in a particular case of a particular establishment with a particular employer and have in that sense solved that particular problem, we also ought to be able to look down the road and monitor the degree to which we have sustained that solution, which is perhaps the best way I can describe it.

As we look at the changes that occur, particularly within the broader public sector, the subsequent agreements that might be reached or the further job descriptions and changes to them and to classifications or the remuneration that might be given in distinction between those who are, for example, outside a collective agreement that might have made the initial correction in pay equity, we ought to be able to know they will not have the effect of reintroducing unequal pay for work of equal value.

We ought to have a mechanism -- as I say, I am not sure of the frequency; I do not know whether it should be regular or random, and I would welcome some discussion on this -- whereby we are able to review a bit down the road and ask, when the corrective measures have been brought in, when the system is in phase, if I can phrase it that way, how long does it seem to stay there?

1 p.m.

The reason I raise that as an area of concern and an area that, in my view, would provide for a ready extension of the monitoring function that is already contemplated in the bill, as I understand it, is that it would afford an opportunity of being able to identify those areas where there might be a change that begins to bring the pay back into an unequal circumstance or to bring a place of employment back out of phase or out of balance.

We might not be able to know about it on the day or month it occurs, but we would be able to have a sense of what is occurring not only within our own house as a narrow Ontario public service in which we might have more direct control, but also within the many smaller houses that form the broader public service of 650,000 employees across this province. We would be able to know those changes soon enough so that circumstances that might look as if they were going in the wrong direction and were going awry could be corrected with relatively little difficulty and the adjustment could be done in a timely way.

I hope this would put us in a circumstance where, in regard to the potential of an inequality creeping back, the margin of the inequality would be narrower and there would be less dislocation than if we found ourselves in a circumstance where we had monitored to the point of initial compliance and then withdrawn the opportunity of even occasional or random monitoring to tell us what was happening across the board, only to find ourselves, as we might find ourselves, with a more difficult problem to solve down the road.

To me, this is by way of saying that a little bit of monitoring in some of these areas is not unlike a little bit of prevention to ensure that what is initially desired, intended and achieved continues to be achieved over time. That is an awful lot better than failing to include that kind of mechanism, leaving the system open to the potential of having to deal with major problems well into the future that were not known by virtue of a lack of information collected and a lack of monitoring undertaken.

Finally, I touch upon the question of the date on which the bill will come into effect. We have had some exchanges in this Legislature already on this question. Considerable interest in the issue of effective date has been expressed by those who are directly affected by the bill as it stands, as well as by those who hope to be brought under the umbrella of protection of the bill. I find interesting a bill for pay equity that puts its effective implementation date well down the road into the future. It almost does so with a suggestion that somehow the substance of the bill is less important than the substance of other pieces of legislation that are around us. The further down the road the effective date, the longer the period of time the pay inequity it proposes to correct will stand.

Given the number of pieces of legislation that have come into this House over the years that have dealt with similarly serious and compelling issues, that have looked at questions of discrimination, that perhaps have looked at issues within housing -- I am put in mind of some of the rent legislation -- there has been a preparedness to put effective dates on royal assent and, more important, in many cases on dates of introduction. The difference in the date selected in this case is a difference that will touch upon the period that will be covered through the inequity. Correcting a problem in a system is necessary. Moving with this bill and the steps it takes is important. Because of the importance I attach to it and because of my belief that it merits an even broader scope, I believe we should be prepared to establish the opportunity for coverage on the date the bill was introduced.

In the course of a detailed examination, it is my hope we will be able to give consideration to what, at the moment, I believe are some very substantial differences in the opportunity to provide protection and the speed with which protection and corrective measures will be provided, as they apply to the question of the effective date.

In summary, the bill is a welcome first step, but in the course of taking that step, we hope we on this side of the House can ensure that the step is lengthened a bit and that a giant step will be taken in the area of the scope to be covered, the individual categories to be dealt with, the sanctions that might be provided to those in noncompliance, the opportunity for further information and monitoring of future changes and shifts, and the immediate effectiveness of the bill, rather than the smaller step that we believe would occur if the bill were simply to move within its narrower scope and its delayed implementation.

Ms. Gigantes: As I sat here listening to the comments of the minister and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) on Bill 105, I cast my eyes up, looking for inspiration and I saw the slogan printed above us, animo non astutia. My Latin is not very good. I guess that probably means it is not wise to get angry. However, I am angry.

Listening to the debate on this bill, one would think we were discussing some type of rearrangement of how we designate funeral plots in Ontario or some dry subject. This bill pretends to address one of the major social issues of our time. Part of the reason we are not hearing what I would consider inspired comments on the bill is that it does so in a very inadequate way.

The history of this legislation is well known to you, Mr. Speaker, and to other members of this assembly. It arises out of the accord the Liberals and the New Democratic Party undertook for the first session of this Legislature after the election of May 2, 1985, in which the NDP and the Liberals agreed that the first session would produce legislation to provide equal pay for work of equal value in both the public and private sectors in Ontario. More than a year later, we have a bill which says it will provide equal pay for work of equal value for about 24,000 women in Ontario, those employed in the direct public service and in a few other agencies.

When the minister read the bill, I noted with interest that he read it wrong. As the bill is entitled, as it is printed and as it is before us, it says, "An Act to provide Pay Equity for Employees in Predominantly Female Groups of Jobs in the Public Service." He read "public sector." I do not know whether he is trying to confuse us at this stage, but I do not think anyone is confused on that point. Surely he knows the difference between the public sector as he has defined it and the public service as it really exists and as it is covered in this bill. That is, as the member for St. George has mentioned, one of the key problems that exists with this legislation.

1:10 p.m.

There are two million women who are working in the paid labour force in Ontario; about 2,135,000 were counted in April. About one quarter were part-time workers. This bill does not address part-time work; so it is a very bad model if it is supposed to be a model of anything. Of those two million women, we are proposing to deal with providing equal pay to about 24,000. In fact, about 300,000 women are probably employed in what in normal nomenclature is known as the public sector, including, for example, employees in hospitals, universities, community colleges and other institutions around the province that are heavily subsidized by the provincial government. About 224,000 of those women are in unions. If the bill before us is to be considered seriously, it ought to be dealing with providing protection for those 300,000 women.

It strikes me as painfully obvious that this bill is not worth the paper on which it is printed if it is supposed to be some kind of indication of a major social policy step forward for Ontario.

The member for St. George talked about addressing the immediate problem and then moving on to monitoring the results of this legislation and whatever further legislation we may be given by the government. This is not only an immediate problem but one that has been identified for years.

For 10 years in Ontario there has been a group known as the Equal Pay Coalition. It comprises a large number of groups in the province that have fought to get government to address the issue of unequal pay for work of equal value in Ontario. After all that time, this miserable bill covering 24,000 women is all we have to show for it.

The immediate problem and the past problem will continue to be a future problem until this Legislature, in all its maleness, becomes gripped with what the Ontario public knows must be addressed. For some time, public opinion polls have been telling this government and any party that wants to read them that the public has a great sense of urgency on this matter.

For example, last September in a large survey done by Goldfarb, the public of Ontario was asked to respond to the following: "On the question of equal pay for work of equal value, do you feel the government is acting too slowly, too quickly, just about right? No opinion?" On most subjects of this kind, when the public has a sense that the government is committed to some forward motion and if it approves of that motion, it will tend to say the government is acting just about right. However, last September -- this is many months ago -- the public of Ontario said the government was moving too slowly. Those people were not talking about the question of 24,000 women; they were talking about equal pay for work of equal value for all women in the paid labour force in Ontario.

That survey showed that 62 per cent of women, whether they were employed in the home and probably not paid or employed in the paid work force, felt the government was moving too slowly on this issue. In fact, 45 per cent of the men surveyed were of the same mind. That was in September 1985. So far to July 1986, we have this bill which provides some protection for 24,000 women.

This morning I had the duty to attend an informal meeting of the standing committee on administration of justice. It was the third meeting of this type that members of the justice committee have held in recent days to try to determine how we will deal with this piece of legislation when it is referred to us, as we expect. It seemed clear what will be happening in the justice committee, certainly against my will, is that we will go through another round of what is called consultation on the question of equal pay.

Last year we had consultation leading up to the publication of the green paper. There was consultation by the minister; there was an interministerial task force set up and lots of consultation with the Equal Pay Coalition, labour and business groups; and, finally, there was a green paper.

When we had consultation with the public around the green paper, that went on from early this year until mid-May, and we do not even have a report out of that process yet. That consultation was to provide, by means of the appointment of three vigorous community representatives to an equal pay panel, a hearing of public opinion on how to implement equal pay in what the government calls the private sector and what I would call most of the economy of Ontario. It is all the economy of Ontario, except those 24,000 women employed in the groups referred to in this bill.

We have not had a report out of the green paper process, not from the government-appointed and government-paid consultants who were supposed to be the ears of the Attorney General around the province on this subject. We have had a report from the shadow member of that consultation panel, Janis Sarra, who was asked by the Ontario Federation of Labour in her capacity as director for human rights to attend all panel hearings. She managed to put together a report, which is available to all members of the Legislature. If we never get the final report from the official government process, we at least have her report to work with.

Following the completion of the hearing panel, there was an announcement by the Attorney General of yet another round of studies. At that time, he had a request from his business advisory group to get funding and researchers to provide for a summer's worth of study of implementation legislation covering equal pay for work of equal value. He then acceded to a request by the union advisory group to be given the same amount of resources to do studies of its own. This has become another reason for delay in the matter of addressing a problem that the public has clearly identified as a most urgent problem.

We will now turn to further hearings in the standing committee on administration of justice. We will duplicate the green paper process in the hearings to be undertaken by the justice committee. When I realized that this predictable event was going to occur, the duplication of the green paper effort, I got the sick, sinking feeling that sometimes happens to some of us here in the Legislature that the fix is in.

However passionate the public may feel on this matter, however ready and anxious for action the public is, there is a conspiracy that goes on in here among a lot of people who may represent a lot of different interests that are not necessarily the interests the public expects them to represent. There is a conspiracy among these people that something that has been around so long as a problem can wait another little while to be addressed.

This bill does not provide for retroactivity; so the longer it is delayed in implementation the more money will be saved by the Treasury of Ontario. It is going to be very expensive, if and when we get legislation that will provide equal pay for work of equal value for all working women in Ontario, including part-time, casual, student and trainee employees. The point is the longer it gets delayed, the more money is saved and the more money women are robbed of. That is not very good English. I should look again to my little slogan up here. I should not get so angry on this subject. Forgive me.

1:20 p.m.

Every day we wait, every week we wait and every month we wait means another day, week and month, and it is going to be years. According to the minister, it will be two years before there are any payouts under this little bill. That is money that does not go to women, but it is money that belongs to women. We all know that, but there is no sense of urgency around this place to do something about it.

I am very angry with this whole process. I am made very angry. I do not feel in accord with the government on this issue at all, nor do I feel in accord with it on housing policy. When it became the government more than a year ago, it promised to address these two major items. We have had remarkably little progress, and I have a sick, sinking feeling that there is no great sense of urgency to act around here.

I cannot say I am looking forward to working on this bill, not one bit. It is not the bill I want to be working on. It is not the bill this party wants to be working on. We wanted one bill and we wanted it last year. There are lots of models to choose from. We do not have to study this for ever. Consultation can go on in committee. It does not have to go through endless rounds of interministerial committees, advisory committees and public consultations where the reports are given privately to the minister's ear.

It will get done at some time. I suppose that by 1988 we may see some women in that group of 24,000 provided some kind of legislative protection under this bill. They will actually get some money in their pockets as a result of the work we are undertaking on this issue, but it is too little, too late and too slow.

Mr. Laughren: I hope that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) was listening carefully to my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) because the way in which this bill has been drafted leads one to intemperate language.

I do not have the inherent anger my colleague has, for obvious reasons, but the way this bill is drafted reflects, in my view -- and these are mean words perhaps -- lack of courage on the part of the Minister of Labour. Even to call or refer to a bill that deals with so few people in the public sector as dealing with pay equity in the public sector takes more nerve than most canal horses have. It really does not bring pay equity into the public sector.

The battle on pay equity is not over. We have no illusions whatsoever in this party about why the government is having so much apparent difficulty with pay equity in the private sector. If the government cannot bring in pay equity in the broad, public sector because of pressure from those in places of power, then I can imagine the heat it is getting from those people in power in the private sector. I am very pessimistic about the possibilities of any kind of decent legislation dealing with pay equity in the private sector.

I have always regarded Simone de Beauvoir as being the person who provided the foundation for what I call the ideology -- others call it the theory -- for demands for legislative action to improve the economic status of women. Her quote sticks in my mind. It is very short and to the point, namely, "Independence begins in the purse."

There are no illusions in this party as to why the government has brought in such a lily-livered bill that purports to deal with pay equity in the public sector. It has been seven years since we in this party introduced our first private member's bill to provide for equal pay for work of equal value. That is indeed a long time.

On many occasions we have raised the example of the difference in income between switchboard operators and parking attendants at Queen's Park. We know, and the minister pointed it out, that the public sector is not as bad as the private sector, where the differences in pay for work of equal value are truly astounding.

This bill is very cleverly designed. I can imagine the midnight oil that was burned in devising it. It gives the impression that the government listened closely to those lobbying for equal pay for work of equal value, but at the same time, there is a great deal of tokenism in it.

For example, it deals with the proactive approach to it and ties in the complaints-based approach as well. It has the Pay Equity Commission, but -- and this is a big but -- it has an enormous number of problems built into it. I can see where the impact of this bill will dash a lot of people's anticipations and hopes for what would flow from it.

I know we are not in clause-by-clause debate here, but the subsection that really got to me was subsection 5(1), which defines "achievement" as "when the job rate for the representative job level" -- that phrase should be in quotation marks - "in a predominantly female group of jobs is at least equal to the job rate for a job level in any predominantly male group of jobs where the work performed in the two job levels is of equal or comparable value."

I do not know who thought up that wording when there was such nice alternative wording available in the Manitoba legislation with this definition. Compare it to the one I just read.

"Pay equity means a compensation practice which is based primarily on the relative value of the work performed irrespective of the gender of employees and includes the requirement that no employer shall establish or maintain a difference between the wages paid to male and female employees employed by that employer who are performing work of equal or comparable value."

That spells it out very clearly and most succinctly and does not get into phrases such as "representative job level," which I assume means the level of most employees rather than the job level with the highest proportion of women in it.

The minister has a bill that I hope he is not particularly proud of. The timing of the bill makes it clear it is going to be a year and a half -- my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre pointed that out -- to two years with no retroactive aspect whatsoever to it. The exclusions in the bill are outrageous. Why would that include training positions, student positions, rehab positions and casual positions while -- this is what I like -- it "also excludes positions that the commission designates for the purposes of this section." I do not know why the minister has allowed that to happen. It provides an enormous opportunity for loopholes for employers.

1:30 p.m.

The enforcement aspect of the bill is a joke. As I read it, and as the member for St. George pointed out, there is nothing in it that says it is illegal to pay discriminatory wages. What kind of bill is that? It is a bizarre one. If the employer does not comply, what is the enforcement mechanism? One would never guess; it is to file an order with the Supreme Court. My goodness, that is completely ludicrous.

Ontario should be leading the way in many of these social fields. There is no reason we cannot be very proud of the social legislation we have in this province. In some cases, we need to pull the country along with us. We are a province that can handle progressive social legislation without it crippling the economy, as the minister might be wont to say.

I was reading some material from one of my favourite organizations, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the independent European-based committee. About five years ago, in a 19-nation survey of developed countries, it found that Canada paid less to its women workers, relative to men, than any other industrialized country in the world. Ontario is part of that. I hope the minister does not think we are somehow forging ahead of the rest of the world with this legislation; we are not. It is still embarrassing from time to time to be part of the social fabric in Ontario.

We know the time is long past when we should tolerate this. We can look at the Attorney General's report on Employment Equity/Affirmative Action in the Ontario Public Service, 1984-85, to find out some of the more specific details. There are some signs of progress. I am not totally pessimistic in this area, but I despair about the time it is taking to make improvements. I hope the minister does not say, "It is never enough for the New Democrats." He is nodding his head. I wish the cameras were on the minister now, instead of on me. They would show he is nodding his head, smiling and saying that is exactly what he thinks of the NDP.

This is an area where that kind of argument holds no water whatsoever. There is no reason at all to move so slowly. My colleague the member for Ottawa Centre talked about public opinion being so strongly in favour of pay equity that if the minister were completely committed to following the polls, as the previous government did, he should be moving more quickly than he is. I do not know what he is afraid of in bringing pay equity to the broader public service. It might be money, but as I tried to say earlier, Ontario has the kind of economy that can afford this kind of justice. I do not know how he can do otherwise.

We are making some progress with respect to the wage gap. For example, according to the report of the Attorney General, "The wage gap between the average salaries of male and female employees continued to narrow by a further one per cent" over the previous year. "This represents a 6.2 per cent improvement since 1974. Women now earn, on average, 77.8 per cent of what men earn, compared to 62 per cent in the province as a whole." That is the public sector versus the private sector. Even those numbers indicate how long it is going to take before there is true equity.

It is a bit startling to read through the list of various ministries of government. I thought I would pick a couple of the ministries. There is the average salary by ministry and the women's average salary as a percentage of men's average salary in those ministries. At the very bottom of the totem pole is the Ministry of Industry and Trade, now the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, 61.1 per cent. For the Ministry of Northern Affairs, it is 61.9 per cent. I am glad the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is responsible for that ministry, which now is the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines. Perhaps he will bring some clout to this problem.

These are the women's average salaries in the ministries as a percentage of men's average salaries:

Ministry of Energy, 63.4 per cent; Ministry of the Solicitor General, 66.8 per cent; Ministry of Colleges and Universities, 67.5 per cent; Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 67.7 per cent -- I am glad the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) is here; it is a little more than two thirds -- Ministry of Education, 68 per cent; Ministry of Revenue, 68.8 per cent; Management Board of Cabinet, including the Civil Service Commission, 69 per cent; Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, 69.7 per cent; Ministry of Natural Resources, 70.8 per cent -- considering the Ministers of Natural Resources, prior to the change of government, I am surprised it is even that high; nevertheless, 70.8 per cent is still too low -- Ministry of the Attorney General, 71.3 per cent -- this is the minister responsible for the status of women -- Ministry of Agriculture and Food, 72 per cent.

It goes on. There is a lot of work --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Where is the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. Laughren: The Ministry of Labour is 71.6 per cent. I assume the Minister of Labour is proud of that, as he was so anxious for me to get to it. I do not know how he can be proud that women in his ministry earn 71.6 per cent of men's average salaries.

Ms. Gigantes: How do they get an average of 77 per cent out of that?

Mr. Laughren: How do they get an average of 77 per cent? Well, there are some that are over 77 per cent, but I would want to look at those numbers myself.

I looked at the occupational categories as opposed to ministry by ministry. In the clerical category, for example, women as a percentage of the total people in the category were 80.4 per cent. There is still an enormous amount of stereotyping going on in the government service. I looked at the service-wide average salaries by module or by occupation. The same story is repeated again and again. I will not go through the entire report, given the length of time that is available to us. However, we are not at all pleased with this bill, but I understand it is the best we are going to get out of this government.

What bothers me so much is that I believe the resistance to true pay equity in the public sector is not as great as the minister has conjured up in his mind or as is in the minds of both the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and the Attorney General. If I were the Attorney General and responsible for the status of women, I would be beating the Minister of Labour over the head with this bill because of what it does.

I will conclude my remarks. I hope the minister, having listened to the debate this morning, will think long and hard about the next step of including the broader public sector and of moving towards pay equity in the private sector. I would like very much to hear the minister's views on that process of when we can expect pay equity legislation for the private sector. Having seen this piece of legislation dealing with pay equity in the very narrow public sector, I am very fearful of what will happen, or not happen, with pay equity in the private sector.

1:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will wrap this up briefly by commenting on the substance of the comments from both parties. I will try not to be provocative.

The government has made a determination, and some of the reasons for that determination I have outlined in my remarks, as uninspired as they were, I say to my friend the member for Ottawa Centre. The government has made a determination to proceed first with the public service, or if one wants to call it the wider public service, and then to expand the principles and implementation of pay equity to the wider public sector and to the private sector. The Attorney General continues to proceed with the work he is doing to bring forward that legislation as soon as possible. We do not make any apologies over here for that, but we do want to get on with the job.

I reject the suggestion from both opposition parties that this legislation is meaningless. I reject that on behalf of the thousands of women whom it will affect, and I reject it on the principle that for the first time in this province a government has had the courage not only to stand up as the party opposite does and say, "We believe in the principle," but also to come forward and put that principle in outstanding legislative form.

I consider this legislation to be the finest pay equity legislation in this country. In fact, there is only --

Mr. McClellan: This is only one and a half per cent of the principle. There is 98.5 per cent to go.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am talking about the principles. We make our starts and then we move forward. I should not listen to the interjections, but my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) does make an important point. Indeed, I indicated in my speech today that this is only a first step. I remind the members opposite in terms of this being the principle of this legislation that we are one of only two jurisdictions in Canada, the other being Manitoba, that have a proactive pay equity scheme.

My friend the member for St. George keeps talking about the Quebec scheme and the federal scheme. As she knows full well, the fact of the matter is that they are meaningless schemes. Under the federal and Quebec schemes, very little has happened compared to what will happen in Ontario. Despite all the criticism coming from my friend the member for Bellwoods, I predict more will happen even within the narrow public service in Ontario as a result of this legislation than has happened in all the Quebec legislation in the private, public and wider public sectors; far more will happen with this legislation alone than has happened in many years in Quebec. That is a reality.

My friend the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has talked about this legislation and indicated we should be pulling the country along. I want to remind him, as I just pointed out to my friend, that this is proactive legislation; it is model legislation for the rest of the country in dealing with the public service. I remind the member and the House that the threshold level of 60 per cent for the female-dominated groups is the lowest in the country; it is 10 per cent lower for females than the legislation from his party and his government in Manitoba. I do not think we need to be told that we are not taking a leadership role.

Both opposition critics indicated the government was dragging its feet. They may have missed this story during the holiday weekend, but the government of Manitoba, which brought in its proactive pay equity legislation one year ago at the end of June, finally concluded bargaining collectively a job evaluation scheme one year after the legislation was passed. It took them one year. The legislation introduced by this government contemplates taking a maximum of six months: three months of collective bargaining and, if the negotiations fail, an additional three months as we move through the arbitration process.

I am sure my friends know now -- and if they do not, we will attempt to lead them through this as we come before committee -- the details and difficulties in implementing the job evaluation scheme and just in coming up with how individual job categories fit into the scheme that has been chosen and the length of time that is needed. It is fair to say we have attempted to get on with the job as quickly as we can, and I might add that people in the Civil Service Commission were more than a little nervous when we said we want to have the first payouts two years after the legislation is proclaimed.

Briefly, to finalize, the critic for the official opposition talked about the wider public sector. In her definition of that sector, she talked about those who were subject to Bill 179 wage restraints and said they should be provided the protection of the bill. In doing that, it seems to me she misunderstands entirely what is in the bill. The bill contemplates a trade union situation, because it talks about collective bargaining of a job evaluation scheme, and not all those who were brought under wage restraints were in a unionized situation.

More important, I want to put on the record that this government, this party and, I am sure, the third party know what this "Let us have the wider public sector" from the official opposition is all about. The party opposite has had its conversion again on the road to Damascus. I say to my friend the member for St. George, her party was in power for 42 years; where was its bill? She was in this House for four years, from 1981 to 1985, while her party was in power. Where was her party's legislation? Let us not be too silly about it. Her party had a chance to bring in the bill. When this government took office in June 1985, the cupboard was bare. It took a while to get the bill forward; we had to start from square one, because her party had done nothing.

I say to my friend the member for St. George, who may be personally committed to this even if her party is not, we understand what this wider public sector issue is all about. Her party would be delighted if it could hook this into the legislation. It is desperate to hook it into the legislation because, quite frankly, it does not believe in and is not prepared to support private sector legislation. It would shipwreck this legislation in a major way. The fact that my friend over there does not understand that leads me to suspect she does not understand the legislation.

Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The honourable minister has imputed motives to me and my colleagues, and I ask him to withdraw.

Mr. McClellan: Speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker: There are no motives being attributed. I interpreted this as simply a factual presentation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to say that we in this party and this government would be very concerned should there be any amendments that would effectively restrict our ability to move forward with implementation. We are dealing with the narrow public service, and we are dealing with some very unique situations here.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if you will rule on whether the minister has abused the privileges of the member for St. George by saying she and her party would not support pay equity in the private sector?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is an interesting point of view.

Ms. Fish: It is not a point of view. The minister imputed motives on the extension to the public sector, and I am sorry the Speaker will not assist with a ruling.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

1:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: In summation, we on this side are very proud of this legislation. We think it is model legislation for the country. As my friend the member for Nickel Belt has suggested, it establishes Ontario as the lead jurisdiction. It puts us in the forefront of reform, and that is exactly where this government is on this issue and so many others. We look forward not only to the discussions in committee but also to the day when the first payouts begin and true pay equity for the public service workers in Ontario begins to become a reality.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on administration of justice.

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Before we go to the next order, I wonder whether I could ask that the bells be rung at the appropriate time since we are going directly into question period at 2 p.m. and we want all honourable members to be in attendance for that event.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The majority of the members did not know that we were sitting through lunch. We must have three party support to adjourn the House, so if the third party caucus supports it --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If it were agreeable, we could ring the bells for a while.

Mr. Andrewes: Not a bad idea.

The Acting Speaker: The House will stand recessed until two o'clock.

The House recessed at 1:53 p.m.

2 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Andrewes: Yesterday the Premier (Mr. Peterson) flippantly justified the appointment of the friend, close business associate and employee of the former Minister of Northern Development and Mines to the board of the Northern Ontario Development Corp. by stating that Roland Cloutier was both reappointed and a Tory. There are many competent Tories, and he may well be one of them, but this appointment is wrong, regardless of Mr. Cloutier's past or present political stripes.

The Premier was wrong to appoint an officer of companies owned at the time by the then Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Premier was wrong to appoint the president of a company now negotiating a 10-year, $20-million forest management agreement with the cabinet to the powerful Northern Ontario Development Corp. The Premier was wrong when he stated that this was simply a reappointment. Mr. Cloutier did not serve on this board during the past year, he did not serve two years ago and there is no record of his serving on the NODC as far back as 1978 and 1979.

The Premier was wrong if he made this appointment without any knowledge of these questionable circumstances and of Mr. Cloutier's close relationship to a fellow cabinet minister. In view of recent events, perhaps "wrong" is too strong a word. Can it be that the Premier did not know about these facts? Perhaps he just forgot.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Martel: Standing order 29 states that a "minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally or at a later sitting."

Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that on May 7, 1986, I inquired into the death of one René Perron. On May 13 and June 16, I asked questions of the minister on the death of Frank Spurgeon. On June 4, I raised the matter of a Johnson Matthey worker who was badly burnt.

On June 5, I asked about John Bukliss, a worker at Imperial Oil, who was fired because he continued to harass his company over the fact that asbestos was all over. In fact, the Ministry of Labour went in and wrote some orders that the company had to clean up.

On June 24, I asked a question about Tim Peacock, a young man in Brantford, who was severely burnt. On June 26 and July 8, I asked questions of the minister regarding the serious situation at the London courthouse. Asbestos was throughout the entire work place and, despite the Ministry of Government Services having known for years that the place was full of asbestos, construction was going on.

I have raised all those matters in question period, and to this time the minister has not deigned to answer anything. I draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the rule has to be enforced so that ministers have to answer eventually.

BACK-BENCHERS' QUESTIONS

Mr. Callahan: I understand the poet laureate of the Tory party composed a poem about me. I also understand my friend the member for Simcoe Centre (Mr. Rowe) has probably found his position in opposition a harder "Rowe" to hoe. I would like to respond to his little ditty as follows:

The honourable member for Simcoe Centre

Makes light when all members' questions enter,

Since he, once in power, is now a dissenter.

The wilderness is loud with sobbing,

Where once the air was loud with Tory cheers.

We Liberals in government

Understand why he is in tears

And hope he and his party

Keep it up for 40 more years.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I would like to add something to what was said by an earlier speaker. Over the life of this current session of the Legislature, it has become increasingly difficult to get a response from the various ministries of this government. I have had occasion to write to many ministers at the behest of constituents in the riding of Simcoe East. I want the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to be aware that the record for response from his ministers is at best dismal. He is well aware that when one is in opposition it is no easy task to address the many issues of one's riding. While in government, especially this government, it is considerably easier, with a staff in the realm of some of those Hollywood movies with a cast of thousands.

I would like the Premier to be aware that his ministers are not only treating the members of the opposition in a cavalier manner, but they are, in essence, also treating the people of Ontario in the same manner. He should be aware that good government is more than ensuring a sugar coating for all things Liberal. To govern in a responsible matter, the ministers must attend to these responsibilities and at least give those of us in opposition for the moment the courtesy of a reply to our correspondence. I have correspondence dating back to March 6, March 24 and several letters in April that the ministers have not replied to. I want to put on the record the dismal performance of this government.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Morin-Strom: I and others in the Sault Ste. Marie area have applauded the government for the initiatives it has taken for Sault Ste. Marie earlier this week with respect to the decentralization of offices -- in particular, moving some 360 jobs to Sault Ste. Marie, which is likely to bring something in the order of $10 million in wages every year to the Sault, and also in moving ahead capital projects. At the same time, I point out to the government and to the Premier that there are examples of how this should not be done. One particular area is correctional services.

The Sault Ste. Marie jail had a $2.6-million expansion completed earlier this year and we had the official opening by the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Keyes) in Sault Ste. Marie on February 7, more than five months ago, and to date we have not one inmate in that facility. The old jail continues to be crowded. That jail includes 48 cell locations and an additional 14 inmates in a dormitory. Meanwhile, we have not seen any of the jobs we have been promised for the new facility and we have not seen action on the open-custody facility that is also required in the Sault area. I hope the Minister of Correctional Services will look into this issue for us.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Mr. Rowe: I want to bring to the attention of the House the supposedly open, no-walls, no-barriers government and its new way of appointing nonpartisan people to agencies, boards and commissions. Specifically, I bring to the attention of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) some appointments made to the police commissions that are an example of this new nonpatronizing operation of the present government.

These appointments include David Hill, a former president of the Ottawa West Liberal Association, to the board of police commissioners, Ottawa; Alex Mouriopoulos, a long-time Liberal and president of the Liberal riding association, to the Hamilton-Wentworth regional board of commissioners of police, and Norris Badanai, Liberal candidate in Fort William in the 1985 provincial election, to the Thunder Bay board of police commissioners.

In recognition of his part in this new, nonpartisan appointment process his government is following, I am pleased to present the first in a series of Liberal Pork Barrel of the Month awards to the Solicitor General. Congratulations.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Foulds: On Tuesday of this week, the Premier apparently discovered northern Ontario. I am quite sure he was disappointed to read in one of this morning's daily papers that Asian immigrants had discovered it 11,000 years before him. The Premier is in good company; Christopher Columbus thought he discovered it first too.

The Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) still has not discovered northern Ontario. A Winnipeg anthropologist, Dr. Jack Steinbring, believes he has found the oldest human settlement in Canada near Kenora; yet the Minister of Citizenship and Culture cannot find the money to fund his research through the Ontario Heritage Foundation. He has been turned down on a number of occasions.

The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) also seems to have a difficult time finding things. Last year the Ontario Lottery Corp., which itself is about to discover the wonders of northern Ontario, gave the Treasurer $250 million to fund research such as that which is going unfunded in Kenora. About $152 million of that has gone missing in the bowels of the Treasury.

The Minister of Citizenship and Culture and the Treasurer must undertake their own archaeological dig through the Treasury to find that long-lost $250 million so they can fund such worthwhile research projects as Dr. Steinbring's and thousands more like his.

2:10 p.m.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members to join me in recognizing a visitor and guest in the Speaker's gallery, Mrs. Patricia Setches, member of the Legislative Assembly of Victoria, Australia. Please welcome Mrs. Setches.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SURVEYING

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Today I would like to introduce a bill to revise the Surveyors Act.

This act has been amended periodically to reflect specialization and technological advances in the surveying field, as well as to ensure high professional standards.

These revisions are a part of that tradition. The revisions incorporate four different but related specialized surveying disciplines under one statute. The four disciplines are cadastral surveying, which deals with boundary locations; photogrammetry, or obtaining information about land features through aerial photography; hydrography, the surveying of underwater features for navigation, and geodesy, the science of determining the size and shape of the earth and the interrelationship of points on its surface.

The revisions to the act divide the members of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors into two groups. Those wishing to practise cadastral surveying will require a licence and those qualified in the other three disciplines will be entitled to certificates of registration.

This bill also establishes a number of committees designed to protect the public interest in professional land surveying.

Timely revisions undertaken since the act was passed in 1892 have helped create and maintain a strong professional surveying community here in Ontario. The revisions under consideration now are simply part of that continual updating and improving process.

Mr. Bernier: As we come to the end of this session, I want to end on a complimentary note, complimenting the Minister of Natural Resources for bringing forward the amendment to the Surveyors Act. It follows the long-established tradition of the previous administration, and I compliment him for it.

INNOVATION ONTARIO CORP.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I am pleased to be able to report to the House that the Innovation Ontario Corp. is ready for business.

Mr. Barlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I have not received a copy of the statement. I know the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) has, but I have not.

Mr. Speaker: According to the standing orders, there must be copies delivered. There is a copy. Would the minister continue.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I apologize for not sending that copy over sooner.

The corporation's structure has been put in place and funding of $8 million has been allocated for this fiscal year.

The development and spread of high technology have been clearly identified as major factors in determining future levels of economic growth; yet studies by my ministry, academics and the business community have found that high risks deter venture capitalists and other lenders from funding technology-intensive firms in the early stages of development.

In addition, the size of Canada's venture capital market is relatively small. On a per capita basis, venture capital investment in this country is less than one tenth of that in the United States.

Addressing these gaps in the marketplace is the central purpose of the new corporation. This is consistent with the government's commitment to new technology as outlined in the speech from the throne and our broader objective of creating new jobs in all parts of the province.

Innovation Ontario, which was announced in the budget, complements rather than competes with the private sector. It offers financial and other assistance for projects that have commercial potential but are not yet developed enough to attract conventional investment.

The corporation has five objectives. These are:

1. The stimulation of technology-based enterprise in Ontario by providing financial, technical, managerial and marketing expertise;

2. The development of enterprises to a stage where they can attract venture capital and other investment;

3. Better commercialization of high-technology products, processes and services;

4. Increased acquisition and development of technology products by Ontario firms;

5. Improved transfer of innovation and technology through better access to technical and market information.

Innovation Ontario's programs will be introduced in two phases over the coming months. Phase I, starting immediately, has two functions:

1. Pre-venture assistance provides financial and hands-on help to emerging high-technology investors and entrepreneurs to develop their products, processes and services in preparation for private sector venture capital funding.

2. Technical information services offers clients access to a central database for information on patents, markets and new technical developments. A $300,000 investment fund will support the commercialization of research. This fund will be available through the commercial development officers and innovation centre programs initiated to encourage commercial activity on university campuses.

Phase 2, to begin in the fall of this year, will extend the corporation's reach and further strengthen the private sector's role.

Technology licensing and joint venture assistance will offer financial help and information on acquiring foreign technology through licences and joint ventures for manufacturing in Ontario.

Technology supplier development will fund the development of more domestic suppliers to meet public sector needs for new technology. It will also work to increase that sector's use of technology products.

The criteria for each of Innovation Ontario's programs are designed to ensure that proposals are assessed on the basis of technical merit, commercial viability and strategic significance to Ontario.

At the same time, considerable care has been taken to ensure that sufficient flexibility exists to meet the unique requirements of entrepreneurs and young companies in this vital sector. This flexibility is demonstrated through use of financial instruments best suited to the needs of specific private sector clients and, in each case, by a clear exit strategy allowing for clean divestiture of the investment as early as possible.

Just as Innovation Ontario complements the role of the private sector, strong relationships with other public sector agencies will add to the corporation's effectiveness in contributing to the government's objectives. The corporation has the same chief executive officer as the Ontario Development Corp. and access to my ministry's technical and information resources. Other ministries, universities and municipalities are closely connected through suppliers, commercial development officers and innovation centres. Additional links exist with provincial and federal government offices abroad.

The corporation's contribution to our objectives will be closely monitored. We will assess the number of firms assisted in getting private sector investment, the achievements of licensing and joint venture projects and the number of products and services successfully brought to market. We will measure the number of suppliers assisted in developing products that meet public sector needs and clients serviced with technical, market and patent information.

My feeling as we start this major initiative is one of excitement. We can encourage more startups in the high-technology sector and, at the same time, ensure that more such enterprises survive. By doing so, we will be making a major contribution to Ontario's competitiveness. This will improve employment opportunities for all those who live in this province.

Mr. Brandt: I want to make a brief response to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the two statements he made this afternoon. Interestingly enough, although the statements were separate, some elements of the statements are connected, and I would like to draw them to the minister's attention.

There are some areas of the minister's initial statement with respect to the new fund he is setting up that I find appealing. If by using the phrase "commercialization of...product" in his statement he means his ministry will be of assistance to small businessmen in particular in marketing their products, that is very much a step in the right direction. The need for assistance to small business people, particularly when they are attempting to develop new export fields in foreign markets, is a very critical and essential step that has to be taken.

However, I would like to caution the minister that when programs such as this are announced, the staff be very clearly told that the program must be simple and understandable. All too often we set up these programs with good intentions in mind, only to have the bureaucratic maze become almost overwhelming for a small, ordinary businessman.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a few brief comments in reaction to the announcement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on the Innovation Ontario Corp. The announcement is a good one with respect to the support it will provide to firms in the high-technology portion of our economy. However, I point out to the minister that it does not address the larger problem industries face with regard to technology. I suggest to him that support will be required in some other areas as well to support the technology we need in Ontario.

In particular, I want to see technological support for a broader range of industry and the provision of technological knowledge open to everyone in small and medium-sized firms in other industries rather than focusing on the high-technology area. In terms of geographical distribution, there are economically depressed portions of this province that require special initiatives that include technology.

INSURANCE RATES

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have another statement. I wish to inform the honourable members of a new initiative being undertaken by my ministry to alleviate the shortage of product liability insurance for Ontario exports to the United States.

The members are undoubtedly aware of the serious difficulties that have arisen from the lack of and increased cost of general liability insurance. They are aware too that the government responded to this situation by establishing the Ontario Task Force on Insurance under the chairmanship of Dr. David Slater. The report of the task force was tabled in this House on May 6.

Dr. Slater's comprehensive report covered a wide range of insurance problems and underscored the difficulties experienced by many of our exporters in either obtaining or affording insurance coverage on their exports to the United States.

I will not repeat the reasons the task force found for the shortage and high cost of insurance for our exports, but I should emphasize that roughly one half of our manufacturing labour force is engaged in export-related activities and that 90 per cent of our exports are destined for the US market.

It is, therefore, of great concern to this government that some of our exporters to the US have not been able to obtain insurance coverage and are at risk of losing sales to our most important export market.

Earlier this year, I personally met with representatives of some 20 national trade associations and the insurance industry to discuss this aspect of the insurance crisis and to investigate possible solutions. I could see that the problem of product liability insurance on exports to the US could not be solved by the private insurance industry. It was clear that government involvement was necessary in meeting the needs of Ontario's exporters.

The insurance task force noted, and I quote from the report, "that there are compelling reasons to justify a stronger government role in assisting the insurance industry to meet the demand for liability insurance for exports to the United States." It therefore recommended that "the government of Ontario should give strong consideration to sponsoring an insurance industry pool."

After careful consideration of the task force findings and recommendation, after consultation with major industrial associations and after a review of the many requests for assistance that the Ministry of Financial Institutions and my ministry have received directly from individual firms, the government has decided there is no other alternative but to support the establishment of an insurance industry pool for product liability insurance for exporters to the United States.

The government of Ontario will initiate a proposal for a three-year plan with private insurers whereby a policy of up to US$1 million will be available for Ontario exporters to the US. It will be on the basis that the Ontario government will provide substantial reinsurance to private insurers participating in the program.

The plan will be one of last resort for Ontario manufacturers and will charge market rates based on US experience. There is to be no element of subsidy.

The government will have no direct involvement with the insured since it will be acting in the capacity of a reinsurer for the primary insurers that issue the policies. The government's involvement will be restricted to three years and there will be scope for portions of its reinsurance to be taken over by the private reinsurers.

There will be restrictions on entry to the plan to guarantee that it remains an insurer of last resort and to limit government involvement. For example, brokers will have to demonstrate that they could not obtain coverage from private insurers. This initiative represents a proposal to the private insurance industry in Ontario to work with this government to resolve an extremely serious and difficult problem. The insurance industry has responded very well to our other efforts to alleviate the recent insurance crisis. I am optimistic about its support.

Over the next few weeks, we will be holding further discussions with the private insurance industry to work out the final details. I must emphasize in closing that this initiative is designed to address the lack of product liability insurance for exports and not the concerns about the cost of such coverage. As I said a few minutes ago, there will be no element of subsidy as premiums will reflect US market rates.

Nevertheless, once the pool is established and operational, I am sure it will be of considerable assistance to Ontario exporters in that it will help them sustain and expand their exports, output and employment.

It is to be hoped that legislative changes in the US with regard to liability insurance, together with new arrangements by the insurance industry, will remove the necessity for any government support beyond the contemplated three years.

Mr. Brandt: I indicated I wanted to tie the minister's two statements together. Interestingly enough, in the $1-million fund the minister has proposed to have set up with respect to liability insurance or the additional liability that may be required in terms of some export contracts, I find it somewhat strange that he would not extend that even a little way to include all foreign markets, not just the United States.

When we have some 90 per cent of all our exports going to one market, I would think any assistance the minister might provide to accommodate that market would also be made available to accommodate the 10 per cent, recognizing that we do not want to have too much of a dependency, even though our good friends to our south are our best customers.

I urge the minister to amend the second statement -- I want Hansard to note he is nodding agreement -- and perhaps take this point into account. I think the program could be extended at limited cost, since I understand it is an actuarially sound program, in that it will not cost the government any money and will come in as an over-the-top program to help companies that have difficulty in getting insurance coverage.

There are elements of positiveness in both statements. There can be some changes made that will strengthen them, and I encourage the minister to so do.

CROWN EMPLOYEES

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am pleased to table today the Ontario Law Reform Commission's Report on Political Activity, Public Comment and Disclosure by Crown Employees. The report grows out of the reference I directed to the commission last January to consider this subject. I am delighted the commission has met the July 1 deadline I imposed, while at the same time giving this very important area the thoughtful consideration it deserves.

The commission stresses throughout its report the need to balance two competing values. The first is our interest in maintaining the independent and neutral public service that we have come to count on in Ontario, one that serves the public and the government of the day regardless of political party and that owes its appointment and tenure to merit rather than political favour. The other value is the personal and public interest of crown employees to participate in democratic government and enjoy the freedom of expression guaranteed to our citizens both by our political traditions and by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In general terms, the commission concludes that most crown employees can be given broader political rights without threatening traditions of independence and neutrality in the public service. The report deals first with political activity. The commission divides crown employees into two categories: senior employees with line management, administration of justice or policy roles, to whom most political activity beyond voting would be prohibited; and all others, to whom most forms of political activity would be allowed.

Persons in the restricted category could not run in a federal or provincial election unless they resigned their employment, but could run in municipal elections under defined circumstances. They could not solicit funds for, associate their position with or canvass or actively work for a federal or provincial party or candidate. The commission estimates the restricted category might include up to 3,000 crown employees.

All other employees would be given broader and more certain political rights. They could obtain a leave of absence without pay, but without loss of seniority or benefits, to run in a federal or provincial election. Otherwise, their political activities would not be restricted except by a general code of conduct intended to ensure that the public could have confidence in their neutrality in performing their official duties. For example, the code would prohibit an employee engaging in political activity from endeavouring to take improper advantage of his or her position or from engaging in conduct giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The commission also emphasizes that no crown employee should be compelled to take part in a political undertaking or support a particular political party.

The commission goes on to clarify and expand the right of crown employees to make critical comments about the government and government policies. Once again, the restricted class of crown employees would have a more limited right of critical comment, since they may be closely implicated in the formulation of government policy. The larger class would be freer in the right to speak out, subject only to certain safeguards the commission recommended to protect the confidence of the public.

The third subject of the report is disclosure of government information. The commission has attempted to make its recommendations consistent with the principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that is now in committee. In doing so, it recommends abolishing the oath of secrecy taken by crown employees and providing a statutory duty concerning disclosure to supplement any employee's common law duty to his or her employer.

The commission supports the principle of whistle-blowing, whereby an employee discloses information about government wrongdoing or inactivity in the greater public interest. The commission sets up a detailed procedure for disclosure to a special counsel, whom I will discuss in a moment, who could take steps to get an official response from the government and make the information public at the same time. There would be recourse to the courts in cases of disagreement.

The principal administrative recommendation is to establish the position of special counsel to the Legislative Assembly, a position responsible to the Legislative Assembly and not to the government. An official with the same title and similar powers operates in the United States federal government. The special counsel would advise crown employees on questions of acceptable political activity or acceptable public comment. This advice, provided confidentially on a solicitor-client basis, could be used by the employee if any disciplinary proceedings arose out of the activity or the comment.

The commission also proposes that employees should have statutory rights to arbitration concerning issues relating to potential activities, critical comments and disclosures of government information.

In typescript, the commission's report runs to three volumes totalling 900 pages. The commission has dealt with this important subject in a thoughtful and balanced manner and has obviously given us all a good deal to think about over the long vacation that is only hours ahead.

I invite public participation in considering the report. I expect it should be available in printed form in about six weeks. I ask that any interested group or individual in the House or outside let me have comments in writing by the end of October 1986. The government expects to give the commission's report, for which I congratulate it once again, high priority in our legislative program.

Mr. O'Connor: By way of brief response to the statement of the Attorney General, I simply comment that the size of the package he has sent to us indicates he may be begrudging us the brief vacation we were due to start today; he hopes we will read this over the summer.

We welcome the general principles enunciated in the statement, although we have not had a chance to read any of the report itself. We can only point out at this point that it is a report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. There should be full and public input to the report before it goes any further. There is no indication of when legislation might be formulated following on the report, but we anticipate that in the late fall.

I note with some encouragement that the principle of whistle blowing has been formally enunciated by the minister; that is, the former practice of the use of plain brown envelopes by civil servants is eschewed from this point forward. It is interesting and significant that the report and the statement the minister made were delivered to me, not in one but in two plain brown envelopes.

Mr. Rae: I want to comment on the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. First, I want to say -- because no Liberal will ever say it -- that it was something which was negotiated in the accord and it was called for specifically. We are very proud of that achievement.

I also want to pay tribute to my predecessor as leader of the party, Michael Cassidy, and to the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), who was one of the first well-known victims of the previous and the existing Tory rules. I want to pay tribute to Jack Stokes, who I will be seeing tomorrow. If it was not for the courage that Jack showed in raising the MacAlpine case, we would not have had the kind of momentum for change that is in existence today.

The accord refers specifically to the redefinition and broadening of the rights of public service workers to participate in political activity. I want to say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that the accord does not deal with a report from the law reform commission; the accord refers to the need for legislation. We expect that legislation this fall; we expect it to be in place this fall --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is not part of the accord.

Mr. Rae: -- and we expect civil servants to have rights prior to the next election campaign in Ontario. Let us be very clear about that.

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is not part of the accord.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The member is making too many demands.

Mr. Mancini: The member is drawing lines in the sand.

Mr. McClellan: Something set them off.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I do not know what I said. Are the members over there upset because I mentioned the accord? What is their problem?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We like the accord.

Hon. Mr. Scott: We just do not capitalize on it.

Mr. Rae: I find it ironic to hear the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) speak of the whistle-blowing aspect of this. Let us not forget what happened to Mr. MacAlpine: He blew the whistle and was fired. He was fired for blowing the whistle.

Somebody mentioned the Fraser case. If I may say so, the Fraser case is about a very different principle. Mr. Fraser was not blowing a whistle; he decided to express himself on a whole range of public issues at variance with those of the government. That is a different question, one with which the law reform commission deals very explicitly.

We want to see changes. We want to see those changes in legislation. We look forward to dealing with that legislation and passing it -- first, second and third reading, and royal assent -- in the fall. It can be done. Let us do it.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) has a statement that may run over the minute and a half remaining. We would like unanimous consent for him to deliver it.

Agreed to.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank the honourable members opposite for agreeing to allow this statement to proceed.

As honourable members are aware, during the past 15 months the federal government has made important changes to the way it determines the unemployment insurance benefits to which a worker is entitled.

To be specific, Ottawa is now deeming severance pay, pay in lieu of termination notice and pension moneys as earnings for the purposes of calculating unemployment insurance benefits. The result has been to postpone, reduce or even, in some cases, eliminate workers' eligibility for UI benefits.

It is the view of the government of Ontario, other provincial governments and groups representing both business and labour that this federal initiative is regrettable. The practice adopted by the federal government is misconceived for the following reasons:

First, severance payments are provided to employees for the capital loss they suffer when they lose long-standing jobs, accrued employment benefits, seniority rights, returns to job and skill specialization and so on. Since severance payments are compensation for capital loss, it is unfair to deem them earnings for UI purposes.

Second, the other type of payment commonly received on termination, pay in lieu of notice, is considered to be a penalty levied on the employer for denying an employee the proper ability to arrange personal affairs in anticipation of job loss and to search for another job. As such, these payments should not be utilized as income support in place of UI payments. They should be available in full to terminated employees to re-establish themselves.

Third, the treatment of pension income as earnings for UI calculations has had the effect of reducing the incentive for employers to offer enhanced severance and early retirement packages in large-scale layoffs. This is a particular problem in northern Ontario, where plant closures and layoffs are causing community distress.

A worker's right to termination payments and severance payments is enshrined in Ontario's Employment Standards Act. Subsection 7(4) of the act requires all termination and severance payments to be made to a worker within one week of the termination of employment. Now, because of the changes to the UI regulations, this provision prescribes that termination and severance payments will be considered as ongoing earnings when UI benefits are calculated.

As I indicated earlier, this is having the effect of deferring, or even potentially eliminating, UI entitlement. It is also frustrating the will of this Legislature with regard to severance and termination pay. Accordingly, I will be tabling later today an amendment to the Employment Standards Act. This amendment preserves the intent of our legislation, which is to ensure that workers receive termination and severance pay in a timely fashion. It also minimizes their jeopardy with respect to UI entitlements.

The proposed amendment will operate as follows:

All employment contracts will be deemed, via the Employment Standards Act, to contain an item expressly allocating all severance and termination pay to the first two weeks following termination of employment. This corresponds to the mandatory two-week period always imposed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission before benefits can begin. The receipt of such moneys in the two-week waiting period will ensure that UI benefits are deferred for no more than three weeks rather than for the lengthy periods now imposed by the commission.

With regard to the federal treatment of pension income for UI purposes, I am informed that an employer and an employee may arrange for pension payments to commence at a date beyond the employee's period of entitlement to UI, thereby preventing pension income receipts from eroding UI benefits.

This bill will help to ensure that the economic security of Ontario workers is no longer jeopardized by substantial delays in the receipt of UI benefits. With this initiative, we will ensure that severance and termination pay legislation in our province does not produce unintended, undesirable results.

At the same time, these changes will maintain the fundamental purpose of our legislation: equity and justice for workers who either lose their jobs of long standing or who lose their jobs in an untimely way. The government remains committed to the view that elementary human needs must not be subordinated to questionable administrative practices.

Mr. Mackenzie: I welcome the intent of the statement made today by the Minister of Labour. The legislation we saw federally, which denied workers unemployment insurance benefits when they were receiving pay in lieu of notice, severance pay or early retirement benefits, was one of the most despicable pieces of federal legislation we have seen in this country's history. However, I want to see the bill the minister will bring in and I want to know his time frame. We seem to get a lot of promises but are a little bit short on action on those promises.

2:45 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: The absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on this last day of the sitting is surprising. Apparently he will be travelling to Expo 86 in lieu of answering questions in the House. I want to express our disappointment. It is the second day this week he has been absent.

In the continued absence of the Premier, I have a question for the Minister of Health. As we approach mid-year 1986 and have completed more than one year of his time in office, we adjourn for the summer facing this kind of situation in the health care system in Ontario: Women can no longer get abortions at Sarnia General Hospital. Thermograms are no longer available for women in Kingston. In vitro fertilization programs at the Toronto General Hospital are in jeopardy of closing. Ajax and Pickering General Hospital has closed its doors indefinitely to new admissions. Uxbridge Cottage Hospital is without a consulting obstetrician. Doctors are beginning to charge fairly significant fees for services they once provided without charge. Dentists are no longer performing oral surgery in hospitals. We are facing a series of rotating walkouts in hospitals across the province. A number of world-class physicians have left Ontario.

Looking at all this chaos in the system, can the minister still argue that the system is more accessible today than it was a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman has come with all the material that should be at his disposal. He knows we are addressing the Uxbridge Cottage Hospital situation. That question was raised by the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson). I have advised as to what has been suggested to us by the chairman of the hospital board on some of the things we might check into in relation to that service.

Services in the health care field have been provided and continue to be provided throughout the province. We can be appreciative of the significant contributions of all the health care professionals across the province in the delivery of service. What the member described as chaos, jeopardy or whatever is an exaggeration. The system is working. There is delivery of medical care in this province. I am sure he would want the public of Ontario to understand that medical services are available and people are receiving assistance throughout the province.

Mr. Grossman: No one in this House will be unaware that the minister makes a lot of phone calls. He calls the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. He does not get any action, but he calls it. He calls hospitals and doctors; he is always calling. The net result of it all is that he cannot deny the validity of the list I have reported to him. He cannot tell us today that the problems at Uxbridge have been solved. He cannot tell us that dentists are performing surgery in hospitals. He cannot tell us that women can get abortions at Sarnia General. He cannot tell us that in vitro fertilization at the Toronto General Hospital is going on.

Would the minister like to state unequivocally here this afternoon that the system is more accessible today than it was a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I would like to state that the operation of the law of this province that ends extra billing has increased accessibility. The honourable gentleman's undertaking to the medical profession that he will repeal the law and again expose the public of this province to extra billing will do more harm to the system. The public of this province knows it is receiving and will receive medical care and has a great deal of confidence in the medical practitioners of this province.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: A year ago, thermograms were available in Kingston. A year ago, in vitro fertilization was not in danger at the Toronto General. A year ago, abortions were available at Sarnia General. A year ago, dentists were performing oral surgery in hospitals in Ontario. Today, none of that is available. Is the minister prepared to say that with all those services gone or threatened, the system today is more accessible than it was when he came to office?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman knows he is reporting on certain events that have been going on in this province for some time. He knows administrative charges have been made for several years. He will be aware of a statement made in 1978 by the college with respect to those charges, administrative and otherwise.

He will also understand that the in vitro fertilization program was not being funded a year ago because his government did not see the need to do it. We did. We have it in operation. We have it in place. We have funded it since October 2, 1985.

We have improved those sorts of accessibility questions. We have had some concerns expressed in certain areas, without doubt, and we are moving to address those concerns.

It does not become the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) to try to indicate that the whole world is not better because we have introduced a law that prevents patients from having to check their pocketbooks before they seek medical attention in the province.

Mr. Grossman: They just have less health care than they had a year ago. That is the minister's error.

My second question is for the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

Hon. Mr. Elston: "I will repeal the law," the member says.

Mr. Grossman: Careful; the Attorney General may refer it to you.

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Grossman: The other day, when I asked the Attorney General about abortions, he found it convenient, as is his habit, to avoid answering the question directly. On this last day of the House, so the people using the Morgentaler Clinic can know what position he takes in terms of his role here, can the Attorney General tell us specifically whether he has any control or influence over the laying of charges with regard to the Morgentaler Clinic?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I suppose we are going to have this question every second day.

As the honourable member knows, the Attorney General's function is to enforce the law, which includes the Criminal Code. The Criminal Code does not permit abortions to take place in the province, except in a hospital and under the certificate of a therapeutic abortion committee.

When it comes to the attention of the Attorney General or any law officer that such an abortion is being committed, he notifies the police, who will conduct an investigation. Once that investigation is complete, the police, under the Police Act, place the information they have obtained before a crown attorney in my ministry for the purposes of determining whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a charge.

That is the process. That is the responsibility of the police, the crown attorney's staff and myself.

Mr. Grossman: We thank the Attorney General so much for describing the law to us, but that does not relate to the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I was only answering the question.

Mr. Laughren: Tell him what to do, Larry.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Those boys need a summer holiday.

Mr. Eves: They are all going to Cuba.

Mr. McClellan: Yuri is going to Afghanistan. We are going with him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General has essentially described quite a passive role for the Ministry of the Attorney General in terms of abortion prosecutions. I refer him to a quote under a heading "AG to Bar Abortions." The Premier (Mr. Peterson) is quoted as saying: "We will prosecute this under the law. We will use the power of the law not to allow free-standing abortion clinics."

The question I have is very simple. In accordance with the words of the Premier, is the Attorney General going to use the power of law not to allow free-standing abortion clinics? Is he going to watch passively what happens out there and if the police decide to lay charges, so be it, and if they do not, so be it?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have some difficulty with the language in which the question is framed, which presumes I have the power to use the law. The fact is that the law in this case is enunciated by the Parliament of Canada. I do not have the power to use it. My obligation is, where there is sufficient evidence, to enforce it by laying an information through a crown law officer. As I have indicated to the member, I intend to perform that function, which has an investigative component performed by the police and a law assessment component performed by the crown attorneys in my office.

That is what we propose to do. It is the role my predecessors have performed. I refer at least to Mr. McMurtry. I know he performed it, because I discussed it with him. That is the way he viewed the law; that is the way I view the law in the role of the Attorney General.

Mr. McClellan: Now we know what his problem is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I shall not allow the Attorney General to misrepresent the position of the former Attorney General in his absence. He would not want to be associated with this interpretation either.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the member accused another member of misrepresenting --

Mr. Brandt: Another member's views.

Mr. Speaker: No, no. Will the member withdraw, please?

Mr. Grossman: Yes, I will withdraw. On that point of order: I want to say that I have been in this House for 11 years and heard all sorts of accusations that people are misrepresenting the facts --

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that the member withdrew.

Mr. Grossman: The Attorney General's leader, the Premier, when asked about the abortion clinics, did not say it was up to the police to enforce the federal legislation. He did not say that if the police recommended the laying of charges, charges would be laid. He did not say it was out of his hands. What he said clearly was, "We" -- being the government -- "will use the power of the law to not allow free-standing abortion clinics in Ontario," resulting in the headline "AG to Bar Abortions."

Is the Attorney General telling the House this afternoon that he and the government are powerless and, therefore, the statement by the Premier does not totally reflect in an accurate fashion the Attorney General's ability to take action?

Hon. Mr. Scott: What I told the House is what I told the House. I do not see any point in repeating it again, and I will not.

Mr. Davis: Oh, I will take my ball and go home.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to disabuse the honourable member of the notion that the law is some kind of personal weapon that can be brought to bear by an Attorney General, the Premier or anybody else. The law is the interdict created by the people of Canada in Parliament. My function with respect to it is both investigative through the police and accessory and prosecutory through the office of the crown attorney. That is what I do. My own views about the propriety or wisdom of a particular law are simply beside the point.

3 p.m.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Rae: In view of the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I have a question for the Attorney General. Yesterday, at the standing committee on public accounts, the Premier said with respect to the conflict-of-interest guidelines, drawn up by officials in the Attorney General's ministry I understand, that those guidelines are so unclear as to be almost completely useless and, "There is no ongoing monitoring and no enforcement."

Can the Attorney General comment on the fact that on June 25, testifying before the public accounts committee, Blenus Wright was asked specifically by the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp): "Based on the two sets of guidelines -- that is to say, the pre-Peterson guidelines and the Peterson guidelines -- is one set of the guidelines stronger than the other set of the guidelines?" Mr. Wright: "I would think the original guidelines were stronger."

Can the Attorney General confirm that this is the official view of his ministry and that, in fact, if the guidelines are useless, they are useless at least in part because the Premier changed them?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Wright, who acts in this capacity, while he is an assistant deputy Attorney General, has traditionally been appointed by the Premier to report directly to him on matters of guidelines. That was the position Mr. Wright occupied under Premier Davis and the position Mr. Wright occupied in the instant case.

The guidelines are very substantially the same as the guidelines issued by the previous administration.

Mr. McClellan: They were changed.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Of course they are changed or they would not be very substantially the same. They are changed but remain very substantially the same. The difficulty with the guidelines, it seems to me --

Mr. Davis: I am surprised he is answering the question.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is a good question and I think it deserves to be answered, so I am answering it, if the member will keep quiet for a minute.

The difference I apprehend between the guidelines is one of clarity. I think the so-called Peterson guidelines are more clear than the earlier guidelines but there still remains much to be done.

Mr. Rae: The Peterson guidelines are so unclear as to be almost completely useless. That is how clear they are. if I may quote the Attorney General's leader, the guidelines were "Liberalized." That is why the government is in the position it is in.

Can the Attorney General confirm the guidelines were changed because of the views of the Premier, and presumably of others, that there were two problems with the guidelines and those specifically had to do with the need to make public office more attractive to business people? The statements have been made on a number of occasions both by Mr. Wright and Mr. Carman.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Can he confirm that Mr. Wright told the committee the reason the Premier asked that the guidelines be changed, the reason he had a conversation with Mr. Robinette in May, was specifically in order to further "Liberalize" the guidelines so as to make public office safe for businessmen?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I cannot confirm what Mr. Wright said to the committee because I was not at the committee and I have not read a transcript of his remarks.

Mr. Rae: You should have been there.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I cannot be at the committee; I have other things to do. The honourable leader of the third party was not at the committee either. I do not presume his absence from the committee was sheer idleness.

In any case, that is why I cannot confirm what was said at the committee. I cannot confirm why the guidelines were changed, because I had nothing to do with changing the guidelines and did not play a part. I will make an inquiry and try to develop a response to the member's question.

Mr. Rae: In the absence of the Premier, who should I ask? Should I ask the second most important person in Ontario, or the third or fourth?

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a final supplementary?

Mr. Rae: Of course, Mr. Speaker.

Quite seriously, I am amazed that the Attorney General would not have had access to the transcript on this very important matter. Evidence has been given, and not only by Mr. Wright, who regards himself, as he puts it, "not in a solicitor-client relationship with any of the ministers of the cabinet but as a law officer of the crown who is responsible to the crown." He says, "The crown is my client."

He stated very clearly, presumably on behalf of the ministry and on behalf of the Attorney General, that the guidelines were changed with respect to two very basic areas. The first was to change the requirement that on entering the cabinet people had to divest themselves of shares in private corporations and to substitute the notion of a blind trust for that idea. The second was to introduce an exemption clause into the guidelines in regard to how they would be applied.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Rae: The Attorney General must be aware of those two changes. Does he agree with Mr. Wright that their effect is to weaken and not to strengthen the guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am in the same position. I cannot comment on Mr. Wright's statement because I was not there and I have not read it. If the honourable member wishes me to respond to a statement made by Mr. Wright, he could let me know half an hour before question period. If he did, that would take all the television's fun out of the exercise, which is so important. On the other hand, it might get a more responsive exchange of answers than such questions can possibly get.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Martel: We used to write out the questions two hours ahead of time.

Mr. Rae: Now that the minister gets here, he wants to change all the rules. He can muddle on as the rest of us do.

Mr. Speaker: New question, to which minister?

DOCTORS' FEES

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Health. What course of action does the minister intend to follow with respect to the clear official action of the Ontario Medical Association advising members on what it regards as an acceptable fee to be charged for a whole range of services that are now uninsured? Since this is the last opportunity we will have to ask the minister for the next number of months, precisely what does he intend to do to ensure that we do not see an explosion of extra fees to substitute for extra bills?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable gentleman has framed the question appropriately in as much as it can be inferred from what he said that this is a system of charges that has occurred in the past. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), there have been charges for uninsured services previously, and that has been recognized as a problem by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, which took certain steps as long ago as 1978.

As I indicated earlier, we have made contact with the college. As soon as my schedule and that of Dr. Dixon can accommodate it, we will be meeting to discuss this more fully and thoroughly. We have also taken the opportunity of discussing the matter with people in the federal department from whom certain comments were reported in the press today about the potential impact of the special charges. Having taken those steps, we will be getting responses directly from the federal people and from the college.

Mr. Rae: Since the minister is not going to tell us what he intends to do other than to have meetings, what does he hope to come out of those meetings? What does he hope the result will be?

In particular, if it is the view of the minister and of the college that it is reasonable for physicians to charge, as an example, for telephone consultation, if that is a reasonable service for a physician to be offering to a patient, does the minister not feel it would be reasonable for the fee schedule to be amended so the Ontario health insurance plan pays for that charge rather than the individual patient?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I cannot comment on what the college will or will not respond to me in the sense of what it will find reasonable or unreasonable. I am sure they will express their opinion about that during the meeting, and I am quite willing to consult with and speak to them about that.

With respect to negotiation of fees or items to be added to fee schedules under OHIP, that will be a topic of discussion between us and the association when discussions resume. I can tell the member that we will explore the possibilities and opportunities along the lines he has put to us.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: I do not want to read back every statement the minister has made, but does he not agree that if the basic intent of Bill 94 and of the Canada Health Act is that the average citizen should not have to pay for what one would regard as a normal contact and relationship with a physician, it may require amending the fee schedule and making some changes in what is to be regarded as an insured service? We appear to be finding an explosion of a general administrative fee, a general membership fee, syringe-by-syringe, thread-by-thread and phone-call-by-phone-call payment.

Does the minister not agree he must deal with the phenomenon of extra fees simply replacing the phenomenon of extra billing? Otherwise, we will have gained nothing by the passage of Bill 94.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member has indicated clearly the concern that has been generated by the question which he first raised here perhaps on Tuesday, that we want to look at what is happening in the field, what these administrative charges deal with and exactly what effect they are having. Probably the member would be the first to admit that not all physicians are charging these fees. A lot of physicians are not charging any of these fees.

The question of these fees is not unique to Ontario and it has been raised in discussions I have had with other health ministers across the country. We all have concerns about the possible effect of discouraging access to medical services, and that is one area wherein I want to be sure we do not prevent people from seeking medical services by the levying of these administrative charges.

ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the acting Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, the government House leader. I want to bring to his attention a small oversight on the part of a former minister of the government in another ownership problem. He apparently inadvertently had an oversight. I presume the minister would respond, as did the Premier (Mr. Peterson), by saying this is nothing more than another technicality; however, in this instance, the former member for Cochrane North did, and does to this day, own a share in Hearst Le Nord, a newspaper in Hearst, Ontario. Although he owns only one voting share out of 400, I want to bring to the minister's attention by way of this question the fact that this is a media outlet and we are in the type of profession where the media have an influence over the decisions of the public and decisions made at voting time.

Does the minister not consider that when a member of the cabinet of which the minister is a part owns a voting share of a newspaper, the member of cabinet should comply with the disclosure requirements and indicate that the ownership is in his name, which it is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That sounds like something of significance that should be brought to the attention of the committee looking into this matter.

Mr. Brandt: I am sure that stock response is one we will be getting every day on questions like this. Does the House leader condone or approve of all other cabinet ministers refusing to either disclose or bring forward any of the private holdings they have, as required by the laws of this province?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I hesitate to say it, in the light of the exchange a few minutes ago, but I believe the guidelines are quite clear in this connection.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Since 1981, the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America has been negotiating with his ministry to get Canadian General Electric in Peterborough to conform with the Occupational Health and Safety Act in such items as floor plant committees which are put in position by the company and undermine, as opposed to complying with, the way the act says committees will be established, failing to meet designated substance assessments and programs. Can the minister indicate why it has taken so long to get these problems resolved so that CGE complies with the act?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know the question my friend is asking. There is a question as to the appropriateness of having subcommittees and whether their extensiveness ends up flouting the full joint committee, which is properly in place at that company and has been since the act came into force. I know the honourable member will want to acknowledge that. I am very concerned about the matter of a subcommittee that can overrule the full committee. I have asked for a full report on this matter. I have also asked that the full workers' compensation records of the plant for the past several years be made available to me.

Any time any company or union wishes to ask for an exemption or for something different, it should come forward with proof positive that it is at the leading edge of safety in this province. I intend to see what bears out this very unusual arrangement.

Mr. Martel: Meetings occurred on March 16, 1981, January 7, January 8 and April 20, 1982, September 1983, and January 17, 1985. A whole series of letters has been exchanged by the ministry. Since in August 1985 the minister appointed Rory Egan to get a resolution to the situation, is he now prepared to make an application to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food for a file drainage loan so we can drain the swamp and find the answers that might be left somewhere in the mud?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I note that all the instances other than the last took place before this government took office. Mr. Egan was appointed several months ago, but we have not had his advice yet. It is always easy to try to slap around the minister and the bureaucrats. One of the real concerns is that the workers at that plant have allowed the situation to exist.

Mr. Martel: No.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Somebody is forming the worker representation on the committee. The member should not tell me "No." He is wrong. The fact is that some workers have allowed that situation to exist.

SECURITIES INDUSTRY

Ms. Hart: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. On June 11, the minister made an announcement that the government had decided to adopt in principle the main recommendations of the report of the Ontario Securities Commission with respect to entry into and ownership of the securities industry. Can the minister tell me what the reaction of the securities industry has been to the proposed reregulation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member asks me a question that is quite far-reaching because the response and the reaction were quite far-reaching. Some people were happy, some people were not happy and some people were in between.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I will try again. Order, please. Supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It did not help; we will just wait. If you want to waste time like this, go ahead. Go ahead and waste time.

3:20 p.m.

Ms. Hart: When will the draft regulations be available for industry comment in order that there will be time for comment before implementation?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: What we have done is established a committee made up of representatives from the ministry, representatives from the securities commission and representatives from the industry itself. They are meeting now on an ongoing basis and as soon as they complete their report they will submit it to me.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the government House leader. I ask it as a member of the standing committee on resources development. Can the government House leader explain why Bill 11, which was introduced on May 5 and was allowed to sit on the Orders and Notices paper for more than two months, was handled in the way it was when even brief public hearings were turned down over the objections of a few groups that wanted to make presentations? Why was that delayed for two months and public hearings disallowed?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The bill was referred to the committee about a week ago. The feeling was that it had such an important impact on the community that, while public hearings are usually in the best interests of legislation, in this case we felt there should not be a delay past the summer adjournment. There was a feeling on all sides that, for a number of reasons, we have been here long enough before an adjournment and the thought was that, by getting agreement on all sides, the bill might come back for enactment and third reading.

In this case, there was not agreement on all sides, but a substantial majority was of that opinion; therefore, the bill was referred back to the House and will be dealt with in the committee and, I trust, will be completed and enacted before we leave today.

Mr. Stevenson: I come back to justifying the handling of the bill. Here we have a bill with a list of amendments that will probably print up to be longer than the present bill. We have a minister who refuses to meet or consult with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, which is greatly involved in the operation of the bill, and he also refuses to consult with the co-op co-ownership association. How can he justify closing off even brief public hearings in the light of the way the minister has handled this bill?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Without calling the veracity of the honourable member into question, I cannot believe the honourable minister, who is one of the most open and sensitive ministers in the cabinet, would not respond to the requirements of individuals who want to see him. Most thinking citizens, including the editorialists of the Toronto Star, are advising all of us to proceed with this bill without delay. I sincerely hope all members of the House will see their way clear to do that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder whether the members would allow another member to ask a question.

RADIOACTIVE SOIL

Mrs. Grier: I am sure the Minister of Housing will recognize this as one of the cans of radioactive soil from McClure Crescent that were sent to a number of politicians during Environment Week. In view of the fact that there are in this province two licensed, low-level radioactive waste dumps, one at Bruce and one at Chalk River, why has the minister not unravelled the red tape and removed the radioactive soil from the homes on McClure Crescent before renting out the houses to families?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member well knows that the matter is now in court. We have located a place in which to put the radioactive soil. When the court has decided the case, we will proceed to move the soil.

Mrs. Grier: In September 1983, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), then the Leader of the Opposition, wrote to the then Minister of the Environment as follows, "I can think of nothing more preposterous than government officials sitting close-mouthed at Queen's Park while Malvern residents lived and played and grew vegetables on Radium-226 hot spots in their backyards."

Can the minister tell this House whether he thinks renting the homes and properties on McClure Crescent to families with young children is preposterous?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I remind the honourable member that McClure Crescent is in my riding. I have the same sensitivity and concern for my riding that I would have if the radioactive soil were located in any other member's riding. I give it very serious consideration.

The informed knowledge that I gathered from the experts is that the radioactive soil is not dangerous to the health of the residents. However, because of perceptions, my government was very sensitive -- and I am glad the member has raised what my leader has done -- we acted upon something that was sitting on the desk of the member for years. As soon as it is settled, the soil will be removed.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Mr. Speaker, I will take a second. I would like to answer the last part.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Curling: You did not move it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) will please come to order.

HISTORICAL PRESERVATION

Mr. Knight: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture. In the light of the number of historic buildings and lands that continue to disappear in the interest of new development, what does the minister intend to do to ensure that the protection of this aspect of Ontario's heritage continues?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The question is a good one, coming as it does from someone who is interested in all the historical preservation at Copper Lake. As a first step in the complex and complete public review of Ontario's heritage programs and legislation, I have asked the Ontario Heritage Foundation to undertake a review of its program activities over the past 10 years. This will obviously involve a review of the Ontario Heritage Act and will be a public participation process. I will be involving my critics opposite. I am sure we will come up with something acceptable, not only to the public but also to our children's children.

3:30 p.m.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Financial Institutions. As a tribute to the minister's first year in office and his performance on the liability insurance situation, the children of Burlington have asked me to send him a souvenir copy of the Lion's Club carnival program which appeared in this week's Burlington Gazette. It is appropriately marked "Cancelled" in Liberal red across the face of it. They were unable to get liability insurance. This theme is still occurring across this province.

What is the minister doing to keep a record of cases such as this where children, volunteer organizations and fund-raising groups are disappointed, frustrated and unable to put on their programs? What is his ministry doing?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I want to repeat that to my knowledge there is no event that cannot get insurance, albeit the cost may prevent some organizers from buying it because they do not have the money. That may sound a very glib answer, but sometimes people do not have the financial wherewithal to take a risk and they cannot do it. It happens to everybody at all times.

Mr. Jackson: The minister cannot continue to say he has the matter under control. He talks about his Ontario liability insurance pool and says this program should be available and affordable. Those are the terms he has set out, and yet these horror stories persist throughout Ontario. What is his ministry actually doing that would say to the children of Burlington, "Your carnival will go on this weekend and other programs this summer will continue to go on under this program," instead of paying lipservice to this House about his inactivity?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There is not lipservice. We have assurances from the Ontario liability insurers that all fall fairs can be covered. Anyone who makes application for insurance can get it. If they cannot afford it, that is not the problem of the government; that is their economic problem.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations concerning another pension surplus withdrawal.

Is the minister aware and can he confirm that Marshall Drummond McCall -- which is a Quebec-based public company, but the regulatory jurisdiction of its pension plan is in Ontario -- has applied for a pension surplus withdrawal of $15.5 million? If so, can he tell us whether he intends to block this legalized theft of money that obviously belongs to the employees of Marshall Drummond McCall?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I have a list given to me on a regular basis from the Pension Commission of Ontario listing those firms that have applied for refunds. I do not see that name on it, but that does not mean it has not made application. It has not been made known to me, and I will be pleased to follow it up.

Mr. McClellan: There is a question on the Orders and Notices paper asking for precisely that list. The ministry has refused to provide that list to our research department for the past five months. If it is not too much to ask, will the minister have the courtesy to table the list? When will he bring in legislation that will plug this loophole to end the legalized theft of pension withdrawals and provide those funds to provide inflation protection for retirees?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I get a list of companies that have applied --

Mr. McClellan: Why cannot we have it? Why do your officials deny it to us?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: If the member will listen, I will tell him.

I get the list of those companies that have made application. That is confidential information until the pension commission allows them to withdraw it. When the pension commission says it is prepared to let them withdraw it, any member who is affected by it must be given 30 days' notice so he can make representations.

When the revised Pension Benefits Act is introduced, it will have provisions that the honourable member can then debate in the House, and we will then address his concerns.

FREE TRADE

Ms. Hart: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Several months ago, the minister announced steps taken towards the reduction of barriers in interprovincial trade. Can he advise what progress has since been made in reducing the barriers identified at that time?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe my colleague refers to the provincial-federal meeting of economic development ministers held on June 4. At that meeting, two things were announced by Ontario. One was the reduction of certain prices concerning Newfoundland products by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. The other was the indication by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that we will be moving towards interprovincial standardization of pensions.

Also, at that meeting several other interprovincial trade barriers were identified by the committee, and the ministers returned to their own provinces with those products having been identified. We will be reporting back at the next interprovincial meeting.

Ms. Hart: Free trade negotiations will be continuing over the course of the legislative break. Can the minister advise me what steps have been taken to make sure Ontario interests are being represented during that break?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Consultation and research will be ongoing through the summer months. Mr. Reisman and his committee will be meeting on this subject, as will our representatives, headed by Bob Latimer. We will be watching the subject very closely over the summer months.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr. McCague: I extended the courtesy of telling the Minister of the Environment I had a question for him, and he slipped out to a phone to try to get an answer, but he is back. About 70 days ago, I had one of the very capable pages deliver to the minister a letter from a group called Preserve Our Rural Tecumseth, which is concerned about matters in my riding in which he should be interested. When can those people expect to hear from him?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I want to thank the member for some notice of the question. I heard earlier there was some discussion of that kind of notice, and I think it is very helpful.

I appreciate the member bringing this to my attention. There will be a reply in the not-too-distant future. I know it is a matter of great importance to him. I want to tell his constituents who will be watching this program this afternoon or at 11:30 tonight that the member has communicated with me both in writing and in the House personally and has drawn this to my attention on many occasions. I hope to have an answer for him and his constituents in the very near future.

Mr. McCague: I appreciate the sincerity of the answer. I realize it is the only one the minister could possibly give on 10 minutes' notice. I understand a small item like this on behalf of my constituents does not attract the national attention to which he has become accustomed. However, when is he going to agree with his leader and with the Blueprint for Waste Management and bring private waste disposal site applications under the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I have that under advisement at present. I have given it serious consideration. As the member knows, in some cases it depends on the size of the area to be serviced by a landfill site whether it is subjected to the Environmental Assessment Act as a public landfill site.

In this specific instance, the member has offered some good evidence that there is a need for a full review and a meaningful hearing. He is quite justified in bringing this matter to my attention because, as all members know, a number of these problems that may not have national significance, as he points out, are important to the local people. I am prepared to provide that answer to him in the not-too-distant future.

I do not exclude that as a possibility, because I think it is important that people receive the best kind of assessment possible, whether landfill sites are in the private or in the public sector.

3:40 p.m.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions. We have been told on countless occasions two things with respect to pensions. First, we have been told by the Pension Commission of Ontario that we cannot get access to the names of companies that have applied for withdrawals of surplus pensions. I cannot even get that information with respect to cases that occurred back in 1981. I am told that information is not available to us; it is too complicated and we cannot get it.

The second thing we are told -- and the minister has said this on dozens of occasions in the House -- is that the pension commission has an arm's-length relationship with the government. It has nothing to do with him, he was not there, it was somebody else's brother and the minister did not have anything to do with him. Now he comes into the House and says he has a confidential list of companies that have applied to the pension commission for surplus withdrawals. He is not going to do anything about those withdrawals, but he has that list and he is not prepared to share that information with the House.

My question to the minister is, what gives? Why can he not give that information to the Legislature? If it is good enough for the minister, why is it not good enough for the rest of us?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is good enough for me because I happen to have responsibility for the pension commission; this House does not. The list is provided, but it is not made public because some of the requests are turned down, some of them are pending for whatever reason and some of them are granted. When they are granted, that information is available.

Mr. McClellan: Why does the minister have the list if it is an arm's-length relationship? What is the purpose of the minister having the list, which presumably includes the names of companies that have applications pending for pension surplus withdrawals? Is it at arm's length, or does the minister approve them himself?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can assure this House I have no input into the approval. I am the minister responsible, and for that reason I have the list.

ENVIRONMENT CANADA

Mr. Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Has the minister seen the recent press reports indicating the government of Canada wishes to dismantle Environment Canada and thereby pass on these responsibilities to the provinces in this country? Can the minister tell me whether the federal Minister of the Environment in any way sought his advice or asked him for any input?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: That is an excellent question. I hope it is not the last question of this session, because there are many important ones to be addressed, as this one is.

The second part of the question related to consultation with the provinces before any decision on this report was made. First of all, I have not seen the report, because it is a secret report. From the speculation I have heard or the reports I have seen in the press, however, there is an indication that if this report were implemented, there would be a planned scaling down of the role of Environment Canada.

To my knowledge, the provinces have not been consulted on this. I am hopeful the government of Canada will not scale down or dismantle Environment Canada, because the Ontario office of Environment Canada has been very co-operative with us and helpful in dealing with a number of environmental problems. We feel that while the provinces must play a significant role in pollution abatement, for instance, they would like to do so under the strong leadership of an Environment Canada that has the necessary funding and the mandate to carry out its obligations.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: People who live near the international border, such as the people of Windsor and Essex county, are quite concerned about this proposal by the government of Canada. We know what transboundary pollution can do and how it affects our water and air quality. Can the Minister of the Environment tell me whether, if the government of Canada does what the secret report says it should do, that is going to put undue budgetary pressures on his ministry and whether it is going to cause him not to approve the many requests that all members of this House have made of his ministry for water lines, sewage projects and things of that nature?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I hope that is not carried out, and I know there are many who would not want to see it carried out. The placing of an additional financial burden on the provincial government, which does not have the tax base the federal government has, would be detrimental to sound management of the environment in this country. For that reason, I encourage the federal government not to weaken, dismantle or move its responsibilities to the provincial level, but rather to fund this to a greater extent and play a more significant role. I support all who are in favour of that.

APPOINTMENTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I table the six-month update, according to government policy, on the agencies, boards and commissions, listing all the appointments, terms and salaries in all the agencies, boards and commissions in the province.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Callahan: I have a petition addressed as follows:

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

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

"As concerned citizens and employees of supermarkets in the Brampton area, we understand that the government of Ontario plans to introduce legislation to permit the sale of some beers and wines in Ontario grocery stores and that this may be confined to so-called independent stores.

"As supermarket employees, we feel that our jobs may be jeopardized by this action and urgently request the government of Ontario to include supermarkets in their designation of grocery stores if such legislation be passed to permit beer and wine sales in same."

Mr. Speaker: Before the next petition, I ask all members who are sharing in private conversations to refrain or to lower the volume.

Mr. Partington: I have a petition on behalf of the employees of Loblaws Ltd. store 193 in St. Catharines in Brock riding expressing objection to any legislation that would exclude products because the store is not a so-called independent store, the reference being to beer and wine.

Mr. Cousens: I have petitions from a number of grocery stores in my riding. I have one from the IGA store in Thornhill, one from Loblaws supermarkets in Richmond Hill, another from the Miracle Food Mart in Thornhill, another from the Miracle Food Mart in Markham, another from the IGA in Richmond Hill, and another from a friendly group of people at Loblaws Ltd. in Northgate plaza in North Bay.

Those who signed wish to express their objection to our Legislature on any legislation that would exclude them or their places of employment from the opportunity to sell their customers any products simply because they are not a so-called independent store.

This practice would discriminate against their customers who choose to shop there of their free choice for reasons they believe they have contributed to. This practice would discriminate against them by encouraging their customers to shop elsewhere. 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 product they sell, including many strictly regulated products.

They object to any government action which jeopardizes their jobs and earnings by manipulating free customer choice.

Mr. McCague: I have two petitions I wish to present, from the employees of Zehrs Markets in Orangeville and Zehrs Markets in Wasaga Beach, on the subject of beer and wine in Ontario grocery stores, the substance of which has been read into the record many times.

Mr. Offer: I have a series of petitions: one from the employees of Loblaws store 48, Mississauga; one each from Food City stores 750, 462, 466 and 468; one from the Miracle Food Mart at 1155 Dundas Street West in Mississauga; one from the employees of the Miracle Food Mart at 3200 Erin Mills Parkway in Mississauga; and finally one from the employees of the Miracle Food Mart at 7205 Goreway Drive in Mississauga.

These petitions state that they wish to express their objection to any legislation which 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 object to any government action which jeopardizes their jobs and earnings by manipulating free consumer choice.

ONTARIO HUMANE SOCIETY

Mr. Callahan: I have a further petition with a large number of names attached. It is addressed as follows:

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

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

"That the government of Ontario provide adequate funds to the Ontario Humane Society's animal protection services."

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Haggerty: I have a petition signed by 282 constituents of the riding of Erie.

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

"I, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"I feel that the tax rate increase of 24.6 per cent levied on old ward 4 in the town of Fort Erie is unjust. I also understand there has been a directive from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to make some changes in the tax structure over the past few years which have not been acted upon. This tax structure seems to be a stopgap measure to appease the directives of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs."

3:50 p.m.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Cousens: "To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We request the government of Ontario to reduce gasoline tax by 1.1 cents a litre from 8.3 cents a litre to 7.2 cents a litre immediately and to phase in further reductions over three years to 5.4 cents a litre by 1989."

I have several hundred petitioners seeking to express their views on that.

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC

Mr. Cousens: "To the Lieutenant Governor and the Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We feel that the volume and noise of the traffic, specifically trucks, on Main Street in Markham, are detrimental to the shoppers, the businesses and the overall atmosphere and concept of the old Markham village.

"Therefore, we would like to have trucks prevented from using Main Street -- Highway 48 -- between Highway 7 and 19th Avenue during business hours. An alternate truck route should be established."

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Cousens: "To the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

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

"Whereas it is our constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of our preference;

"And whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment."

I can only say in conclusion that the people in York Centre are not happy the government is doing so many things wrong.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

GILL NETTING

Mr. Haggerty: This is to advise the members of the Legislature that I have received 712 grievances signed by concerned citizens wanting gill netting stopped.

SIDEWALKS

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from residents of the town of Markham. As taxpayers and parents, they are concerned about the safety of their children walking through areas where there are potentially dangerous conditions. There are 80 names attached to this, especially from the Norwich and Raymerville areas. The hazardous conditions to reach Raymerwood Public School are the creek, the ravine and no continuous sidewalk. The creek floods over Raymerville three to four times a year.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government presented the committee's report on the 1984-85 annual report of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. McCague: We just finished consideration of this matter this morning. The report is in a draft state at this point. It is official, but it is not a bound copy, which we presume we will have. We will also have a French version of the report as soon as possible.

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

Mr. McCague from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

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

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Laughren from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Environment be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $14,966,800; environmental services program, $44,291,000; environmental control program, $52,639,600; and utility planning and operations program, $178,017,700.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Although I do not have motions to put at this time, there will be motions before the House adjourns. I simply give notice now that I will ask for unanimous consent at the appropriate time. These motions will establish the membership of the various committees. Unfortunately, all the details are not complete at this moment.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SURVEYORS ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved first reading of Bill 127, An Act to revise the Surveyors Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I gave the House notice today of the bill and explained the ramifications. I am not sure you would like me to read the report into the record as a statement, unless I am otherwise directed.

Mr. Speaker: I think it will be all right at a later date.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order on the first reading of the bill just introduced by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The motion was carried.

Mr. Laughren: I was on my feet.

Mr. Speaker: I will not make any comment.

Mr. Laughren: I have a very brief comment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the House wants to hear the comment by the member.

Mr. Laughren: I want to comment more in the form of a question to the Minister of Natural Resources, who I think is well intentioned. Does the fact that he now is going to be engaged in determining the size and shape of the earth and the interrelationship of points on its surface mean he has finally got control of his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That part of the bill relates to my ancestors, who proved that the world was round and not flat.

Miss Stephenson: Then why did he revert to the Flat Earth Society?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We started the first medical school too.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The motion was carried and it will remain carried.

4 p.m.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved first reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO HOSPITAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Elston moved first reading of Bill 129, An Act to amalgamate Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elston: This bill has come to us quickly over the past few days, but it is the result of a series of long meetings over many months between two of the recognized hospitals in Toronto. They request that we move to incorporate the merger through legislation. Such legislation will revoke the other legislative bases for the separate existence of those institutions. I look forward to the support of the House in relation to passage.

GOLD CLAUSES REPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 130, An Act to repeal the Gold Clauses Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The act is proposed because the statute appears no longer to serve any useful purpose. Comparable federal legislation has recently been repealed by Canada. There will be no disadvantage to Ontario from the repeal of this statute.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There are three main purposes for the bill. First, it will restore business tax liability to the Ontario Jockey Club, credit unions and other nonprofit corporations that compete with similar profit-making businesses. Second, the bill will ensure that silos; storage tanks and bins used in manufacturing and farming operations continue to be liable to taxation. Third, the bill provides for an exemption from property taxation for amusement rides. For those municipalities that will be affected by tax losses through this exemption provision, the bill allows the Minister of Municipal Affairs to make compensating grants for a three-year period.

In addition, I am proposing in this bill an administrative amendment that provides for the reassessment of pipelines to occur at the same time as the next general reassessment of all properties in the municipality.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 132, An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mackenzie: The purpose of the bill is to protect the jobs and rights of employees in various cleaning, food service or nursing home operations. It says that where work previously done by those employees at an establishment is contracted to another employer, or where work done at an establishment by employees of a contractor is contracted back to the owner of the establishment, or where one contractor is replaced by another, the employees cannot lose the benefits they have achieved as a result of organization.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to elaborate on a point of information that was given to us by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) yesterday with respect to the appointment of Roland Cloutier to the Northern Ontario Development Corp. The Premier indicated that had been --

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask on what point of order the member is rising?

Mr. Andrewes: To correct the record. Information was presented to us that was inaccurate and I want that information to be --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe on a number of other occasions, members have risen to correct the record on information they have placed on the record, not on information that has been placed by other members.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of information: When there is concern that information given to the House has been quite inaccurate, even though it was given by someone else, is there any means of ensuring that the correct information is given to the House?

Mr. Speaker: There are other opportunities, such as members' statements, or the question can be asked again. As I said, on many occasions members have corrected the record, but the standing orders allow them to correct only their own record, such as on a point of personal explanation. However, the member is not on a point of personal explanation. He is trying to correct someone else's comments. In other words, he is trying to start a debate.

Mr. Andrewes: No.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

4:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT

Consideration of Bill 11, An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: In considering Bill 11 , I ask the consent of the House to permit the minister to move to another seat so he might get information more readily to assist in dealing with the bill and its amendments.

Agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Forgive me for not being totally aware of the standing order procedures. A few days ago, Bill 11 was sent to the standing committee on resources development by 20 members or more rising in the House. It was sent back immediately from that committee to the House. I would like the Chairman to rule whether that contravenes section 57 of the standing orders.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, before you make that ruling, I would like to point out that it was on motion taken in the committee and supported by a majority of members of the committee that the bill was returned to the House for review by the committee of the whole, which we are endeavouring to begin at this time.

Mr. Shymko: Referring to the remarks made by my honourable colleague about a majority, it is conceivable that 100 members of a 125-member legislature would vote for a bill to go to a standing committee and 12 members of a standing committee would refer it back against the wishes of 100 members.

Mr. McClellan: I understood there was three-party agreement on the procedure that is unfolding here this afternoon. If that is not correct, there are alternatives.

Mr. Chairman: Is the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) referring to new standing order 63?

Mr. Shymko: I have a copy of the August 1981 Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly. My numbering referred to 57 of the August 1981 version, which I believe is the same under the present standing orders but in a different numerical sequence.

Mr. Chairman: That is the new 63, and it says, "When a bill is referred to a standing or select committee" -- and you are referring here to it being referred to a standing committee -- "after second reading," which it was, "it shall not be considered in committee" -- it would be that committee that is referred to, not upon committal back to the committee of the whole House - "until five days after the referral" -- that is, the referral by this House to the standing committee -- "unless a waiver of this interval" and so on. You are talking about the referral from this House to the standing committee being less than five days. Is that correct?

Mr. Andrewes: Might I interrupt this enlightened discussion and indicate that we have all-party agreement to move to committee of the whole on Bill 11?

Mr. Shymko: I was just informed that there was an agreement of the three House leaders, so I understand the clarification.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the time is past. It should have been brought up when the bill was reported back to the House. That was the first opportunity to have brought this up, or in the committee itself. Those were the times to bring up the standing order. I am afraid it is too late, because it has been reported back and accepted.

On Bill 11, are there any comments, questions or amendments and, if so, to what section?

Mr. Shymko: Notwithstanding the agreement of the three House leaders, I am deeply concerned by the decision of the committee yesterday to send this back to the House. The intention --

Mr. Chairman: If you have amendments, to what section are they? We are just gathering now.

Mr. Shymko: Are we going clause by clause? My amendments are for section 2, and I believe copies have been distributed to all parties. Do you have a copy, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Reville: I have amendments to sections 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 12 and 13.

Ms. Fish: I will be moving amendments to subsections 7(10) through 7(15). Legislative counsel is now looking at the appropriate numbering for an amendment for a short new section of the bill which is not yet numbered.

Mr. Chairman: Where will that new section go?

Ms. Fish: Counsel is assessing that now. I believe the recommendation will be that it will be towards the end of the bill, perhaps as a section 10a or section 11a.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I can make things a little easy on the minister. I have been given a list of government amendments. Can you confirm that these are correct and all-inclusive? There are amendments to the definitions of "co-operative," "municipality," "rental residential property," and "rental unit."

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Then there are amendments to section 3, subsections 4(1), 5(1), 5(3); a new subsection 5(4); subsections 6(1), 6(3), 7(1), 7(2); a new clause 7(3)(a); subsections 7(5), 7(10), 7(11); a new clause 7(11)(a); subsection 7(12); a new clause 7(12)(a); subsections 7(13), 7(14); clauses 9(a), 9(b), 9(c); a new clause 9(h); subsections 10(1), 10(2), 10(3); section 11; a new section 11a and section 12. That is the list. Is it all-inclusive?

Hon. Mr. Curling: All-inclusive.

Mr. Chairman: I will ask for patience as we go along. When we have an amendment from, say, the ministry and amendments to the same section from, for example, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) and the member for St. George (Ms. Fish), we may get a wee bit out of order in that we may take one of the amendments in a slightly inappropriate order.

Ms. Fish: That is not inappropriate.

Mr. Chairman: Depending upon what is in the amendment, perhaps one should definitely go ahead of the other because of its contents. There may not be time to get it sorted out. It will become obvious if we get into trouble.

Do we have the amendments from the member for St. George? We will start with section 1. Definitions are definitely first. The member for Riverdale also has an amendment to section 1.

Mr. Reville: It might be useful if the government were to move its amendment, because my amendment amends that amendment.

Mr. Chairman: That is exactly what I was referring to with the member for St. George. That is exactly right.

On section 1:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that the definition of "co-operative" in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"`co-operative' means a rental residential property, other than a condominium, that is

"(a) owned or leased or otherwise held by or on behalf of more than one person where any owner or lessee has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental residential property, or

"(b) owned or leased or otherwise held by a corporation having more than one shareholder or member where any one of the shareholders or members, by reasons of owning shares in or being a member of the corporation has the right to present or future exclusive possession of a unit in the rental residential property,

"but does not include a nonprofit co-operative housing corporation as defined in the Residential Tenancies Act."

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Reville: I withdraw my amendment because it now appears in the minister's amendment.

Mr. Shymko: Does the minister's definition of "co-operative" refer to such residences as 80 and 100 Coe Hill in the riding of High Park-Swansea in Toronto's west end, where some years ago some individuals conned a number of our citizens into buying shares in the mortgages and the ownerships of these buildings with the impression being given that they could give eviction notices to the tenants by buying it as a block?

As I recall, we as a government intervened with one piece of legislation to prevent the eviction of these tenants. We also intervened with another piece of legislation preventing the individuals from misinforming potential purchasers about these co-operative shares and the fact that they could remove tenants, and there was a penalty attached. I believe both acts were passed in 1983.

There has been a lot in the media about those so-called co-operatives. The problem faced by tenants was eviction, and that had been resolved, but many of the individuals who had bought the shares and considered themselves as owners of co-operatives, owners of these buildings, cannot move in and are caught in limbo in a catch-22 situation to this day. I recall one elderly lady who parked herself in the lobby because she had sold her home thinking she would have occupancy rights. They all had possession rights but no occupancy rights.

Does the minister's definition of "cooperative," to which I carefully listened, apply to these homes and to these ownerships?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If they were created before June 1985, they are exempt.

Mr. Shymko: In other words, do I understand that these buildings will now be considered to be co-operatives and will be regulated by this act?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No, it does not apply to them.

Mr. Shymko: It does not include these buildings?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No.

Mr. Shymko: What are they defined as? Are they not based on shares? I believe in his definition the minister refers to shared ownership. That is what they have, a share in the ownership of these buildings with possession rights.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If they were created before June 1985, they are not included in this; they are exempt.

Mr. Shymko: But any similar arrangement that occurred, let us say, next month, would be included in this definition.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes.

Mr. Shymko: Is the minister saying we will now have two classes of similar buildings, with similar agreements in similar situations, but some will be protected by this bill and others will not?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If they were not created before June 1985, we will have that situation.

Mr. Shymko: Before June 1985. So we have a situation in which a bill that applies universally to all buildings will have no reference whatsoever to the anomaly of buildings that were purchased with these arrangements before 1985. We will have one class of protection for one group of citizens and another class with no protection at all.

I do not refer to tenants but to landlords who were conned into buying these buildings on the definition that these were co-operative ownerships.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I stated, if they were created before June 1985, they are not included in this definition.

Mr. Shymko: I point out to the minister the serious nature of creating a class in limbo that will continue in perpetuity. I would appreciate if this could be addressed so that there would be equitable protection for these poor people in this unfortunate and terrible predicament of not being able to occupy these apartments and who are not considered to be protected by this bill. Could not the deadline of June 1985, or whatever the minister referred to, be made retroactive to January 1983 so that all of these buildings would be included and protected under the definitions?

Hon. Mr. Curling: After considerable discussion, we felt that June 1985 was adequate as a date to go back to. To go back to 1983 would be too far. We thought that June 1985 was quite adequate.

Mr. Shymko: Again, I refer to a dilemma that has existed since 1983 when the government tried to intervene. I compliment the minister on the introduction of Bill 11, which is trying to resolve the terrible anomalies that exist, and to clean up this mess that has existed because there were no regulations and no acts to regulate or clean up, and con artists had been moving in every direction. The Cadillac Fairview flip is one classic example.

These are situations of so-called co-operatives where individuals have a share of ownership. It would be complimentary to this government and this minister if, in trying to clean up this mess, he would clean up the entire mess, not just a part.

My appeal to the minister is in the application of this definition. I compliment and commend him on introducing it and he has the support of my colleague to the left. The definition could really alleviate, resolve and clean up the mess of those who have been placed in that predicament for the past three years.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member will find within this bill that we have introduced retroactivity as the member suggests. We decided June 1985 was more appropriate than going back to 1981 or 1983. Many dates could come up, but we decided June 1985 was an appropriate time to be included in this bill.

Mr. Chairman: We are off and running on a question of dates. The amendment in front of me says nothing about dates. I question whether the discussion we are having on dates is relevant to the definition.

Mr. Shymko: I do not have a copy of the amendment because I am not the critic in this area. However, in referring to the minister's remark that there is no reference to a date in the actual definition, I cannot understand why the minister is so strenuously arguing the June 1985 date unless he wants to be very symbolic. At the end of June, or close to June 1985, a new government came in; therefore, the minister began a cleanup, a new slate or a new vision of Ontario from that date. We are not playing at symbolism. I do not know what his concern is and why he refers to a date when it is not even in his amendment.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can stay all day and debate why June 1985 would be good. June 1985 was decided on after considerable discussion and thought.

Mr. Shymko: The Chairman pointed out that there is no reference to the date in the minister's definition. Where is the date? Is it in the bill somewhere?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is taken care of in the regulation.

Mr. Shymko: What regulation?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Does the member not have a copy of the regulation?

Mr. Shymko: I do not have copies of regulations. Normally, regulations are not part of the bill. Often an act is passed and regulations are implemented later, but we do not see copies of regulations.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Surely the debate is about a definition and not about a date. Perhaps the minister can supply the regulations for the member so we can decide whether we like the definition.

Mr. Chairman: That is correct. Perhaps the member for High Park-Swansea can talk to the member for St. George, the critic, to see whether she has any copies of the regulations.

Mr. Shymko: Can the minister send me a copy of the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We will have a copy sent to the member.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Riverdale has withdrawn his amendment. We shall look at the definition of "municipality."

Mr. Curling moves that the definition of "municipality" in section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting, after "village" in the first line, "improvement district."

Mr. Reville: I support the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that the definition of "rental residential property" in section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting, after "units" in the second line, "but does not include a condominium."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that the definition of "rental unit" in section 1 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"`rental unit' means any living accommodation which is used as rented residential premises and includes a room in a boarding house or a lodging house."

Motion agreed to.

Section 1, as amended, agreed to.

On section 2:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Shymko moves that section 2 of Bill 11 be amended by adding thereto the following subsections:

"(2) Despite the provision in subsection (1) or in subsection 82(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act and subsection 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act, an agreement between a landlord and a tenant under which the tenant acquires,

"(a) greater security from eviction from a rental residential property than the tenant would have without the agreement; or

"(b) greater protection from rental increases in respect of a rental residential property than a tenant would have without the agreement,

"is enforceable by the tenant against the landlord and the assigns and successors of the landlord.

"(3) Where residential property units are sold by a landlord under agreements between the landlord and tenants so that less than half of the occupants of the building have lifetime security as tenants in their units, no person who purchased a unit may resell the unit within 18 months after the purchase and no sale of the unit is enforceable within the 18-month period."

Mr. Shymko: I will not reiterate the hour or so of comments I made about the introduction of this amendment during the earlier debate in the presence of the minister. He is well aware of the intentions of this amendment; he received copies of it much earlier, prior to second reading of the bill.

This amendment provides for the first time in any jurisdiction in this great country of ours the maximum protection for tenants. There are two relevant acts. Subsection 82(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act gives the landlord the right to occupy a unit and evict a tenant under certain conditions, and subsection 2(1) of the Residential Tenancies Act gives the landlord the right to seek increases guaranteed by the acts of this province. At present, there are four per cent automatic increases, but if Bill 51 goes through, the increase will probably be five per cent or six per cent.

We are providing the landlord with the right to waive his rights. If a landlord wishes to waive his right of occupancy and to state that the tenant may in perpetuity for his or her lifetime occupy and rent a unit, the landlord may waive the rights guaranteed under the Landlord and Tenant Act. Equally, if a landlord feels he does not need a four per cent increase in the rental fees every year, as is guaranteed by law, and wants to waive that right and make an offer to the tenant, because of the interest he accrues from that, of two per cent, one per cent or no increases for a number of years, that is a right he has.

This was argued in a case before the Supreme Court of Ontario on Friday, March 7, 1986. It was assumed that if we are given certain rights, we have the right to waive them. If I have the right to vote, I have the right not to vote and to waive my right of voting in an election or any right that governments grant me as a free citizen. I have the freedom to waive my rights. Apparently, on the question of an agreement between a landlord and a number of tenants, where the landlord wanted an agreement providing lifetime tenure, waiving his rights and having an agreement where he would not increase the rents by more than four per cent for five years, the court in the March 7 ruling said he could not do that because it contravenes two acts. He could not waive his rights.

4:40 p.m.

This came as a surprise, but it is a ruling. Therefore, it would make a lot of sense in this bill to address the right of tenants in affordable housing to allow a landlord, in an uncomplicated manner, to waive his rights and provide lifetime tenure. We would be unique. We would be the first jurisdiction in Canada to allow lifetime tenure, the best possible guarantee of affordable housing to tenants. We would also allow tenants, if it is in the interests of the landlord, not to give them the allowable four per cent increases. It would allow them to waive that right as well, which is guaranteed under the Residential Tenancies Act.

I appeal to the minister. If there is any way to find legislation that would provide affordable housing, guarantees and security, such amendments will do it. This amendment means that if a landlord enters into an agreement with a tenant waiving his rights to evict the tenant and guaranteeing the tenant a right to a unit in perpetuity, or waiving the right to share the annual guideline increases, that agreement between the landlord and tenant overrides any other statute. That is basically what it says.

It is argued by many, including myself, that this is a simpler alternative than the more administratively cumbersome and legally time-consuming provision of Bill 11 which addresses security of tenure for the tenant. This would make it very clean and much easier by having the landlord granted the right to waive his rights.

The purpose of this amendment is ultimately to correct a defect in the Landlord and Tenant Act, which, as I have said, prevents a landlord from entering into an agreement and offering greater protection to tenants.

What is important, and the minister may not realize it, is that notwithstanding Bretton Place or agreements between Clarkson Gordon and High Park tenants, this would be applicable across the board for the entire province. There may be a landlord in Kapuskasing who has a 12-plex and who wants to give a lifetime guarantee because he loves his tenants, or she loves her tenants. She is happy. Her tenants are seniors; they are over 65; they are great tenants. She says: "Look, I do not want to go through the hassle of the Landlord and Tenant Act. I am giving you lifetime tenure. "

As I have pointed out in the amendment, that tenure would be enforceable by the tenant against not only the landlord but also the assigns and successors of the landlord, if the landlord has the freedom and the choice to waive those rights.

The last part of my amendment is something the minister himself raised with me, that if there are such agreements which offer such protection, which offer this nirvana of lifetime tenure to tenants and no increases for a number of years, what if someone starts speculating? What if the landlord who has signed such an agreement starts flipping those units? It was a genuine concern, as I pointed out in the earlier debate. Therefore, subsection 3 of my amendment says that in the issue of conversion, which may be part of an agreement between a landlord and a tenant, if more than 50 per cent of the tenants agree to convert, such agreement will freeze the flip of converted units for a period of 18 months and therefore prevent a blatant form of speculation.

Although it seems interventionist, a number of parts of this bill may be interpreted as being interventionist, and at least it would preclude and prevent speculators from moving into areas where such agreements exist.

I will not continue to argue the case; I have argued it before. I want to appeal to the minister, and I will be truly surprised if my colleagues to the left object to giving tenants lifetime guarantees. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the New Democratic Party caucus and my friends in that party, who have for years espoused protection for tenants, would object to lifetime guarantees or to giving protection even from increases guaranteed by our statutes.

In trying to understand the sensitivity of the minister and this government to tenants in affordable housing, I cannot comprehend why the minister would object to providing lifetime tenure and no increases beyond four per cent if a landlord deemed it in his interest to waive those rights.

I conclude my remarks with the hope that I have convinced the minister. He is not smiling; so perhaps I have convinced him. He is smiling now. I hope I have convinced the minister, and I hope I will have the support of the members on this amendment.

Mr. Reville: To the surprise of the member for High Park-Swansea, my party will not support this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to make three quick comments.

In regard to the member's first point, section 105 of the Landlord and Tenant Act makes provision for a landlord to give 50-year or 100-year leases if he wants.

In regard to the protection of increases of rent, the rent review process in Bill 51 makes provision for how rent can be increased. Again, on the other matter, we are concerned about rental properties, not ownership.

Mr. Shymko: Which section provides lifetime tenure?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Section 105. Is the member saying "lifetime tenure"?

Mr. Shymko: Yes, lifetime tenure.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It gives long-term leases. I do not know what lifetime tenure is.

Mr. Shymko: A long-term lease can be for two or three years.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Or 50 to 100 years.

Mr. Chairman: Will the members please take the floor one at a time and stand one at a time?

Mr. Shymko: Which section is that again?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Section 105.

Mr. Shymko: Of the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Shymko: Section 105 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I am surprised to hear from the minister that there is an act which provides lifetime tenure when the Supreme Court of Ontario says there is no lifetime tenure.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I want to correct the member. He is saying "lifetime tenure." I am saying "long-term leases."

Mr. Shymko: A long-term lease is one thing; the right of a landlord to waive rights guaranteed under an act is another thing. I do not think it is guaranteed by the act. The Supreme Court of this province has ruled that it is not guaranteed.

I want the minister to be careful. As he has pointed out, a long-term lease can be a five-year lease; that is far different from lifetime tenure. There is no guarantee of lifetime tenure. Is that what the minister is trying to say?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me say it again. The member is saying "lifetime tenure." I am saying "long-term lease." One can sign a lease for 50 years and one cannot be evicted during that 50 years. Or it may be for 10 years or 20 years. The member is saying "lifetime tenure." I am saying "long-term lease."

Mr. Shymko: What bothers the minister in terms of giving the landlord the right to waive his rights? What does he find objectionable when a landlord, in his own interest, wants to waive his rights guaranteed by an act? What bothers him about that?

What bothers him when a landlord says, "I do not want to increase your rental payments by more than four per cent"? What prevents him from giving the landlord the right to waive those rights, which, according to a Supreme Court ruling, cannot be done unless addressed in some bill?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to impress upon the member for High Park-Swansea that it is unnecessary. That is what bothers me. It is unnecessary to do this.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Shymko: It seems to be quite necessary. Some excellent agreements proposed and passed by municipalities -- for instance, the city of Toronto -- would have given lifetime tenure and protection from increases beyond four per cent for five years and perhaps more. These were deemed appropriate by city councils. The Supreme Court rules that they cannot be enforced because it is against the statutes.

Why does the minister adamantly refuse to provide an opportunity for these agreements? Is he against lifetime tenure? Is he against agreements where a landlord waives certain rights and gives this security on a long-term basis?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have no further comment.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Shymko's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"3. This act does not apply to a rental residential property exempted by the regulations or located in a municipality that is exempted by the regulations."

Mr. Reville: I would like to move my amendment that is similar in nature to the government's amendment but adds one further feature.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that section 3 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"3. This act does not apply to a rental residential property,

"(a) of less than three rental units;

"(b) exempted by the regulations; or

"(c) located in a municipality that is exempted by the regulations."

Mr. Reville: The difference consists of six rather significant words, "of less than three rental units." The regulations, which I hope are in the possession of all those who are interested in them, indicate that the bill does not apply if the number of units in the building is less than seven. Since a member of the Legislature has no power to deal with the regulations, I have suggested an exemption in the body of the bill to say that less than three rental units will be exempt.

The reason is that there are a great number of rental residential properties in Ontario of less than seven units, described in the regulations. In fact, there are 446,000 units that fit that description. I have had a number of discussions with the ministry and his officials about this matter, and we agree on the number of units in the category.

It strikes me that it is essential to protect affordable rental housing, however it may be collected together, in units of four or 400. My amendment would bring 79,000 further units under the controls provided by Bill 11. It is essential that we do not create two classes of tenants. Therefore, I urge the members to support this amendment.

Ms. Fish: I might begin with a technical question on the proposed amendment before I speak more generally. I am not sure to whom I can address it. When we are in committee of the whole House, may I address it to counsel, or must I address it to the minister?

The Deputy Chairman: To the minister.

Ms. Fish: I will address the technical question to the minister, and counsel can assist in the reply. Does the amendment offered by the member for Riverdale make it possible for the regulation still to exempt buildings of more than three units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Is the member asking whether the regulation makes the provision to say how much is there? The regulation specifies six units and under.

Ms. Fish: I think the minister misunderstood. I am asking about the impact of the amendment offered by the member for Riverdale, wherein he states, "This act does not apply to a rental residential property, (a) of less than three rental units." That statutorily establishes an exemption of buildings with less than three residential units. Does that clause establish a minimum exemption, enabling the regulations to exempt buildings of six units, or does it establish a maximum exemption, preventing the regulations from exempting buildings larger than those containing three units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am advised we could not exempt the number of units of such.

Ms. Fish: Can the minister please speak a little more clearly into his microphone? I could not hear the reply.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I gather we cannot exempt numbers of units if it were put in the statute in this way. However, if it is in the regulations, we can do that. Does the member understand?

Ms. Fish: I will assume the advice is that subsection 3(a) as proposed would remove the possibility of affording any other exemption in the regulation, the basis of which is the number of rental units. I see counsel nodding that I have correctly interpreted that.

Interjections.

5 p.m.

Ms. Fish: Let me explain what I was trying to get at. I believe the intention of the member for Riverdale is to establish by statute that any residential building with four or more units would automatically be covered by the act. The reason I asked the question was that it seemed to me one might conceivably interpret the wording of this amendment to provide an absolute minimum guarantee that three or fewer units would not be covered, but none the less, still permit by regulation a further exemption based on the numbers of units. For example, as set by statute, that regulation could not bring into the ambit of the act residential buildings of three or fewer units, but this in no way interrupted the ability of the regulation to exempt from the ambit of the act buildings of four or five units. I was asking for an interpretation of a technical question since this wording suggests exemption rather than inclusion.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Let me explain the purpose of the act, and then we can take the technical part of it. First of all, we have tried to target those units that are most vulnerable to being attacked under those conditions. We thought the ones above six were most vulnerable to that. The member suggested we should reduce that to three, and any complex that has three or more units would be included. We are in a position with the member's amendment to have three and above included in this act. That is how I understand his amendment.

Ms. Fish: With apologies to my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), I do not feel it is so clear. I will state my rationale and reasoning. The section reads, "This act does not apply to a rental residential property, (a) of less than three units," but it goes on to say, "(b) exempted by the regulations; or (c) located in the municipality," etc.

The regulations as they are currently worded exempt residential properties of six units or fewer. It is not entirely clear to me whether that section of the regulations would be made null and void by virtue of this clause, and that is the question I am asking.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As the member said, it is a delicate question. We could exempt buildings of more than four or five or six units.

Ms. Fish: Thank you. I understand that adopting the amendment proposed by my colleague the member for Riverdale would not in itself establish a circumstance where the proposed regulations that would exempt residential buildings of four or five and six units were automatically null. It simply establishes that one can only bring into the ambit of the act buildings of fewer than three rental units by amending the legislation, whereas one can bring into the ambit of the act buildings of six, five or four units by amending the regulations.

I believe I am seeing counsel nod that my interpretation is correct. It is an important point to me, because if my interpretation is correct, it alters the effect of the amendment. That is the reason I was exploring it. Perhaps my colleague from Ottawa Centre wishes to engage this point.

Ms. Gigantes: I hesitate to join this intensely technical discussion, but surely if the regulations say one thing and the legislation says another, we are going to have to change the regulations. The government would have to do that on the passage of this amended section. Were we to pass the amendments suggested by my colleague from Riverdale, it follows that the government would then have to change its regulation. Does the minister follow me? It is quite simple.

Ms. Fish: Is the interpretation of the member for Ottawa Centre correct?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did not understand her comment. Can she repeat it?

Ms. Gigantes: I am suggesting that we cannot have regulations that are contrary to the legislation. Having suggested to us regulations that will limit the protections provided by this legislation to those buildings which have more than six units, then on passage of the proposed amendment from my colleague the member for Riverdale, which will have this act apply to all rental units that have three units or more, the minister will simply have to change his regulations. He could not have regulations that were in contradiction to the legislation.

If we change the legislation, which is what we are proposing, the minister can either drop his regulation on this subject or he can put in a regulation that would conform with the change we are proposing.

Hon. Mr. Curling: If we go along with the member's amendment, we will change the regulation from six to three. I think that is the intent of his amendment. Whether I will agree to that is another matter, but we are debating the understanding of his amendment. He said he wanted three or more. If it is accepted, all we will have to do is reduce the regulation to three.

Mr. Reville: May I ask the minister a question?

The Deputy Chairman: You certainly may.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Dispense.

Mr. Reville: I do not want to dispense with the question; I may want to dispense with the answer. Is the minister suggesting that he is prepared to commit the government to changing the regulation to read "a rental residential property is exempt from the act if the number of units in the building, including the number of rental units, is less than three"? That would be regulation 21. Will the minister commit his government to changing the regulation as I suggest?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The section 3 that we are dealing with talks about "the rental residential property...exempted by the regulations." If we come to the regulations, I can make a recommendation to the regulation committee. I cannot commit the regulation committee to changing that.

Mr. Reville: So that I understand this, surely the regulations are within the power of the minister to establish in whatever way he wants and then recommend them to cabinet. If the minister is now saying he will reduce the number seven in regulation 21 to the number three, then I am content to withdraw my amendment. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am prepared to recommend to the regulation committee that it amend the regulation not to three but to four and above.

Mr. Grande: First, let me congratulate the minister on this clause of the act in the sense that it has been on very few occasions in this Legislature that we have been presented with regulations during the debate of a piece of legislation. This is a good way to do things, as far as I am concerned. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies at this time. We look at the regulations and look at the legislation and try to mesh the two, whereas in the ordinary course of events, regulations flow out of legislation that is passed.

5:10 p.m.

The amendment of my colleague, the member for Riverdale, states, "This act does not apply to a rental residential property...of less than three rental units." Forget about the regulations the minister has now. Should he accept this amendment, then the regulation that flows would say buildings with fewer than three units would be exempt from the law.

I have spoken with the minister on many occasions about the importance of this amendment in the inner cities, in the urban core of the city of Toronto, the city of York, the city of Scarborough or what have you, with regard to the old affordable housing stock we have in urban areas. That housing stock, by and large, or a good percentage of it, has been in triplexes and fourplexes. The member for Riverdale mentioned that even when we consider the exemption of municipalities of 25,000 in population, we are still talking about 78,000 affordable units across this province.

I came to the minister last August with the example of the Warwick tenants. Because they lived in seven fourplexes, the landlord was able to convert those units, sell shares and kick the tenants out on the street. Those tenants did not have any protection whatsoever in their security of tenure.

This law the minister is bringing in, Bill 11, is supposed to protect affordable housing. We suggest there are 78,000 affordable housing units with triplexes and fourplexes in Ontario, and from what I understand from the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the government is interested in protecting that affordable stock. Even though the minister mentioned that he would be willing to change the regulation from seven or six to four, I do not see any problem whatsoever with having it in the legislation, because I think the Landlord and Tenant Act has to be changed so that tenants who live in buildings of fewer than six units have protection.

There are at least three pieces of very important legislation regarding tenants' rights and tenants' ability to control their security of tenure that need to be amended so that the thousands of tenants in this province who live in those units will have protection, instead of a landlord one sunny day giving them letters, as happened in the case of Warwick. The minister is well aware of it.

The landlord came to the tenants and said: "Here it is. Here is a letter. You have two days to decide whether you want to buy your unit." In two days, those tenants had to decide whether they were willing to put down $10,000 as a down payment to the landlord to buy their units. If not, they were out on the street. As it turned out, those tenants did go out on the street because they could not afford to buy those units.

I understand the minister is willing to protect fourplexes in the regulations. Let me put it in those terms. He is willing to protect fourplexes, but he is not willing to protect triplexes. The Federation of Metro Toronto Tenant's Associations agrees with me when it says that triplexes and fourplexes are commonly operated as rental accommodation and not as family dwellings. I can understand the need to protect or to exempt units of one and two units because they are more likely to be family dwellings, but the triplexes and fourplexes are rental accommodation, and those tenants deserve the same protection under Bill 11 as do other tenants who live in buildings that have 15, 20, 30 or 40 units.

As my friend the member for Riverdale said, we cannot establish two classes of tenants in this province. I urge the minister to accept this amendment in the legislation because, as a result, the regulations will flow from that, and close to 78,000, 79,000 or 50,000 tenants in this province are going to be thankful to us for having protected their affordable accommodation.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member makes a very good point that in the units of seven and above, we were targeting the units that are more vulnerable. There are about 720,000 of them. We know the statistics too. I am not prepared to amend the bill as it is, but I am prepared to make a recommendation that we have four units and above in the regulations. The argument the member makes is sound, but if we go to three, we are infringing on many families who are there. An extended family may be in three units, but I will recommend in the regulations that we have four units and above.

Ms. Fish: This discussion has highlighted two things, one of which is the importance of understanding not only what is proposed in the regulations but also the criteria the minister intends to use in establishing within his regulations questions such as why buildings would be included or why they would be exempt, on what grounds and for what reasons, and extending that, although we have not touched very much on it in the way of discussion at the moment, to questions of why municipalities or others might be exempted from the ambit of this act through the vehicle of regulations.

The other very important point the discussion raises is that of understanding how this proposed legislation would fit, among other things, with Bill 51, which has gone to committee for hearings, with the remainder of the Residential Tenancies Act and, as has already been suggested, with the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I happen to be one of those who feels it is extremely odd to have a standard that works within one act and purports to afford protection to tenants, only to find that the numerical standard of units per building is altered in another act that any reasonable person would normally believe should be read in conjunction with the first act.

There is a package of legislation, more than just one bill, that provides protection to tenants in this province. I think most tenants and members of the general public, whether they are tenants or not, normally expect that if there is a standard that deals with exemption or inclusion under the protection of an act that speaks to the number of rental units in a property, that standard will be uniform across all the pieces of legislation and will be uniform within the regulations.

5:20 p.m.

I believe there is genuine confusion in the House today on this point. I have in front of me draft legislation from the minister that clearly indicates a policy preference to exempt fewer than six units. The reply to my technical question suggested that while there might be some persuasive reason, if the member for Riverdale's amendment was passed, to amend the regulations, there is no legal requirement that they be amended to come into conformity. Then we had the minister announcing that, rather than six or fewer units being exempt, he was prepared to recommend that only four or fewer be exempt and to recommend that cabinet alter the regulations thereon.

The minister is producing in the course of this an unhappy mishmash. It is all the more a pity that this act was not called for second reading very shortly after its introduction, thereby enabling a proper examination in conjunction with the other companion pieces and perhaps even affording an opportunity for some public hearings, so that today we would not have a plethora of uncertainty back and forth on the amendments, including the minister now apparently changing his mind about what he wants to do in the regulations.

The very importance that regulations have in this section of the bill, and in several others as well, reinforces the need to understand the basis upon which at least present recommendations are being made about the regulations. It is an important question. While I am not entirely certain I agree with the substance of the amendment from my colleague the member for Riverdale, I am very sympathetic to the intent, which is to remove from the regulations a considerable amount on dealing with the ambit and coverage of this bill and, instead of leaving it with the regulations to exempt or include, to bring rather more of the threshold into the legislation itself. It is dealt with more properly by the entire House rather than by the considerably less involving procedure of regulations.

Can the minister please tell me on what basis he initially recommended that six units or fewer would be exempt and on what basis he is now recommending that only four units or fewer be exempt?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Those units that were more vulnerable for conversions, demolitions and evictions were in buildings with seven units and above. The member for Riverdale and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) made the point that there are a tremendous amount of concerns in those units too. We had a long talk.

We felt many of them are in family units and we may be affecting people and moving families out. I told them that I was not prepared at all to look at that, but to maintain it at seven and above. If the situation became necessary later, because it is in the regulations, it could be amended and that figure could change. I would have been much more insistent at maintaining it at seven and above, but after the discussion we found that four and above would be something that could be considered.

I am sorry if it sounds like a mishmash to the honourable member.

Mr. Reville: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: To save time, seeing that the minister has committed himself to changing the regulations to read four, I will withdraw my amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Riverdale withdraws his amendment to section 3.

Shall Mr. Curling's amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 3, as amended, agreed to.

On section 4:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Curling moves that subsection 4(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) No rental residential property, or part thereof, shall be,

"(a) demolished;

"(b) converted to a condominium, cooperative, hotel, motel, tourist home, apartment hotel or any similar use, or any other use for a purpose other than rental residential property; or

"(c) renovated or repaired if a tenant is in possession of a rental unit and vacant possession of the rental unit would be required,

"by any person unless the council of the municipality in which the property is located approves of such demolition, conversion, repair or renovation."

Mr. Reville: I want to move amendments to the amendment. I will move the first one now.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that clause 4(1)(b) of the bill be amended by adding after the words "apartment hotel" the words "rooming house."

Mr. Reville: The government amendment to clause 4(1)(b) is a list of uses, and my amendment adds "rooming house" as a use to the list to ensure that conversions from rooming houses or to rooming houses will also require approval. It is for greater certainty, and I do not believe the government finds the amendment offensive. It may find it unnecessary, but I think it is necessary.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We will not support that amendment.

Ms. Fish: Can I understand why the minister will not support the amendment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: We have a task force on roomers and boarders and we feel it would be premature to make legislation on this when the task force has not made its presentation. We would rather leave that out at this moment.

Ms. Fish: May I speak to the amendment?

The Deputy Chairman: You have the floor.

Ms. Fish: I find that reasoning from the minister bizarre, particularly since his staff rationale was that there would not be a problem in a conversion to a rooming or boarding house because such conversion would require a building permit and renovation and that was already covered. The intent here is to deal not only with existing serious problems. I welcome, for example, the addition of apartment hotel, which I sought, but I feel we ought to be more forward-thinking about the potential that may exist for loopholes.

5:30 p.m.

While reviewing a package of protections for those who are roomers and lodgers is important, this is not to protect existing roomers and lodgers; it is to protect existing tenants where there is a notional or attempted conversion to a boarding or lodging house. As a potential conversion to an apartment hotel, the effect may be to dislocate those who are already tenants in affordable housing. We will be supporting the amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that clause 4(1)(c) be amended by adding after the word "required" the words "or if the rental unit has been vacant for less than one year."

Mr. Reville: The intent of this amendment is to ensure that it is difficult for a landlord to get approval for conversions merely by being successful in somehow getting rid of the tenant and keeping a unit vacant for a period of time so as not to fall within the ambit of this act. The suggestion is that if the unit is vacant for more than a year, then clearly it is not the kind of attrition we have often been concerned about. It is to provide some additional protection for tenants.

Mr. Chairman: Before we carry on, may we digress for a minute? For the convenience of the members, the members' dining room will be open from 5:30 to 7:30 this evening and the cafeteria will be open until 7:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not supporting the amendment.

Ms. Gigantes: I find it difficult to understand why the minister will not support this amendment. Will he explain?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the member's amendment, I presume that if it was vacant, a permit already would have been obtained for that unit or building. Once that individual has obtained a permit, it is not covered under the act.

Ms. Gigantes: What we are talking about is a unit where somehow the landlord has managed to get the tenant out. As the minister is well aware, that usually happens by circulating an eviction notice for which there is no legal ground. That happens regularly, as he knows. Once he has scared or harassed the tenant out of the unit by such a procedure, he then has a vacant unit and applies for his permit.

What we are saying with this amendment is that we have to remove the incentive to the landlord to use bullying or illegal tactics to get the tenant out. I have seen it happen often, and I am sure the minister has too. The landlord then goes and asks for a building permit, which becomes legal because the premise is vacant. We have an incentive in there for landlords to get vacant possession one way or another.

Tenants are in the position where they frequently get frightened out. I recently knocked on a door and said to a lady: "My name is Evelyn Gigantes. I am canvassing. Is there anything you would like to raise with me?" She burst into tears and brought forth the paper she got that day, which illegally told her she had to vacate her premises. She believed that. She is not a rich woman; she does not go to a lawyer. She was looking in the newspaper, and that is why she started crying. As a single parent, she could not find anything she could afford for her and her family.

If we want to get around that kind of situation, we have to put in a disincentive for landlords to use that kind of process. That is what is being proposed here; this is to say, "Okay, go and apply, but nobody is going to deal with your application in less than a year." That is a clear disincentive to the landlord. He knows that if he gets rid of the tenants illegally, under false pretences or by harassment, he is not going to be able to get an application approved unless he has had that unit vacant for a year. It will help protect people who are very dependent on affordable rental housing.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not saying the member would not come across cases such as that. However, they are very rare. That is why we felt we should not support that amendment.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: If I am correct, we are back to the minister's main amendment.

Mr. Reville: I have one more.

Mr. Chairman: I do not believe the chair has a copy.

Mr. Reville: Yes, you do. It is in front of the other one. It is in darker type. It is entitled "Subsection 4(1)" and adds a clause.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that the government motion amending subsection 4(1), as set out in the motion, be amended by (a) striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), adding "or" at the end of clause (c) and adding the following clause, "severed under section 52 of the Planning Act, 1983;" and (b) striking out "repair or renovation" in the 15th and 16th lines and substituting therefor, "repair, renovation or severance".

Mr. Reville: This is a simple and obvious amendment to ensure that severances be required to have approval under this bill. It is important, because affordable housing is lost through severances. I understand the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) does not find it at all offensive to find severances in this bill.

Ms. Fish: I have a question of the member for Riverdale. I am not entirely clear how the housing is lost through severance alone. Perhaps he can enlighten me on that.

Mr. Reville: It is not a familiar problem in Toronto, but it is a quite common one in Ottawa. Row housing units that had been in rental tenure are severed off one by one and sold to become ownership units. The approvals process is a quick, easy run through the committee of adjustment.

This would require municipal approval so that in the case of an application for a severance, if there would be an adverse effect on the supply of affordable rental housing, a municipality could decline to grant severance.

5:40 p.m.

Ms. Fish: Does this severance sever a single-family dwelling from a semi-detached --

Mr. Reville: Yes.

Ms. Fish: I do not quite understand. The severance is legal, I realize; it is legally severing a unit, but I do not understand its application in and off itself, separate from renovation or repair, that would see the loss of affordable housing when the coverage is already there for units. Does it deal with rental properties of three units or fewer?

Mr. Reville: Because of declining housing stock in some municipalities, where instead of residential buildings being vertical they tend to be horizontal and one has row housing row after row, by severing them off one by one and selling them, one then takes the units out of the rental stock. The concern of the bill is to try to protect the rental stock. We do not want to leave a loophole whereby the protections envisaged by this bill can be got around through a simple severance application.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have any comment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No comment.

Ms. Fish: Does the minister accept the amendment? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am unfamiliar with some of those situations. I would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Reville's further amendment to subsection 4(1) carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Curling's original amendment to subsection 4(1), as amended, carry?

Motion agreed to.

Section 4, as amended, agreed to.

On section 5:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 5(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) No person shall sell or lease for a term of 21 years or more or enter into an agreement to sell or lease an interest or share in a co-operative or in a corporation owning or leasing any interests in a co-operative unless the approval of the council of the municipality under subsection 4(1) has first been obtained."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 5(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3) An agreement of conveyance entered into in contravention of subsection 1 is void and any amount paid thereunder is recoverable by the purchaser."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 5 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(4) An instrument or notice respecting the sale, lease or agreement for sale of a share or interest in a co-operative may contain a statement by the vendor that an agreement or conveyance does not contravene this section and such statement is deemed to be sufficient proof that the agreement or conveyance does not contravene this section."

Motion agreed to.

Section 5, as amended, agreed to.

On section 6:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 6(1) of the bill be amended by inserting after "obtained" in the fourth line "and a copy of the certificate under subsection 7(13) is attached to the notice."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 6(3) of the bill be amended by inserting after "act" in the third line "notwithstanding that the notice of termination was served or application made for a writ of possession prior to the coming into force of this act."

Motion agreed to.

Section 6, as amended, agreed to.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(1) of the bill be amended by striking out "as may be required by the municipality for the purpose of evaluating the application or" in the third and fourth lines.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(2) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Notice of the application shall be given by the applicant to each tenant of a rental unit included in the application within five days of the application being made."

Mr. Reville: The original subsection 7(2) actually required that everybody in a residential property get notice. This amendment requires that only people in affected units receive notice. I think this issue will be of interest to everybody in the building; therefore, I will vote against the amendment.

5:50 p.m.

Ms. Fish: This is conceivably a circumstance where notice might be given to some units in a building but not to other units in the building? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It would be given to all. It would also be posted in the building so everyone could see it.

Ms. Fish: That is not quite what I asked. I asked whether it was possible under the minister's amendment for notice to be given to some units in a building, but not to all units, if there were an intention to convert only some units.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is right.

Ms. Fish: One more time: In a multiple-occupancy building --

Mr. Chairman: He said that was correct.

Ms. Fish: I am sorry. I thought he was asking again.

Mr. Chairman: He said, "That is right."

Ms. Fish: I see. We will vote against the amendment if that is the case. If we could figure out what was meant here, it would be helpful. Let me make clear that where there is a multiple-occupancy building that may have the whole or any part thereof affected by an application, it is the view on this side of the House that the complex is a single complex and that all those contained in it should receive notice of the application.

I am hard pressed to find a circumstance where the part of a multiple-occupancy building to be converted would not likely have an effect on the parts not to be converted. It is perfectly appropriate that notice be given to the entire building. I liken it to a notice that might be given for rent review.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have no problem with notice being given to all.

Ms. Fish: Then may I ask why the minister brought in this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The reason is that if one is selling one unit in a building, we thought it was rather unnecessary to tell everyone. The member is saying now that she would like them all to be informed. I thought it would be an extra hardship on an individual to give it to all. That is the only reason it was done this way.

Ms. Fish: Perhaps the minister will consider withdrawing his amendment and relying on subsection 7(2) as printed in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: The minister has withdrawn his amendment to subsection 7(2).

Mr. Curling moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(3a) For the purposes of an inspection under subsection (3), a person authorized to inspect a rental unit has the right to enter the rental unit during daylight hours upon written notice to the tenant specifying the time of entry at least 24 hours before the time of entry, and a tenant shall permit the entry of such person during that time."

Ms. Fish: Since I do not have the act in front of me and my memory is not good enough, is this the provision for entry specified in the Landlord and Tenant Act?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is based on it.

Ms. Fish: In what way is it distinguished from it?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Does the member want me to get the act and make a comparison?

Ms. Fish: It seems to me there is a standard protection for tenants on entry into their units that is provided in the Landlord and Tenant Act. If this act wants to repeat that, it is fine. If it changes it, I am interested in knowing why it is being changed.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am advised that we had to put it in because the words in the first line, "For the purposes of an inspection under subsection 3," had to be inserted. That is why it is different from the act.

Ms. Fish: Is it simply for qualification of the purpose of entry?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(5) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(5) The council may approve the application with or without such conditions as in its opinion are reasonable or reject the application but council shall not approve the application unless such criteria as are prescribed by the regulations are met."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: We have an amendment from the minister to subsection 7(10), but we also have an amendment to subsection 7(10) from the member for St. George. The minister's amendments would delete subsections 7(10), (11) and (12).

We have a problem. The minister's amendment to subsection 7(10) stands by itself, and the one from the member for St. George has three amendments. Let us take the minister's amendment to subsection 7(10) first because it is striking it out and putting in a new one.

Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(10) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(10) Where the council refuses or neglects to make a decision on the application filed in accordance with this act within 30 days after the receipt by the clerk of the municipality of the application, the applicant may appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal."

6 p.m.

Ms. Fish: I will speak to this now because, with all respect to the Chairman, it might have been simpler to have taken my amendments first. None the less, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment for the reason I hope to move my amendments shortly. If one is to have an appeal to the OMB, then we have no objection to this amendment. However, we would prefer to see the authority of consideration and approval rest with the municipality and not have an appeal to the OMB or, from that, an appeal to the cabinet.

We take that position based on the premise that we are dealing with local housing markets that intimately affect the futures of people within municipalities, where the impact of an approval or of a disallowance can be and, we believe, is best known, best weighed and best judged by those most familiar with the local conditions. We believe those most familiar with the local conditions are those who are elected to the local councils, who are responsible, at the same time, for the issues of public works, zoning and the variety of other responsibilities they discharge under the Planning Act, as well as the package of initiatives that might be taken to look at the social fabric and mix of a community.

I note, for example, the impact of things such as the Housing Development Act, which looks to the municipalities for the possibility of the development of nonprofit housing; again a reliance, in part, on the theme that we are dealing with local conditions and that those at the local level are best able to understand the needs. It is within the frame of wanting to re-establish, if one will, the importance of the municipal level, the importance of placing the responsibility for the package of decisions surrounding the availability of housing, particularly affordable housing, with the municipal council, that we will move to delete the references to appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board. With that in mind, we will vote against this amendment which contemplates and provides for a move to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Having known of the honourable member's concern for some time, I know she wants an appeal process in this act. If I understand the member properly, she is saying she is not going for an appeal process. This amendment gives the individual the right to appeal it beyond the municipality.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Curling's amendment to subsection 7(10) carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Next is an amendment by Ms. Fish to subsections 7(10), (11) and (12). Does anyone wish those three subsections separated? It is quite possible to be in favour of one and against the others or vice versa.

Ms. Fish moves that subsections 7(10), (11) and (12) of the bill be deleted.

Ms. Fish: I will speak briefly. This amendment is part of a package of amendments I propose to table. If successful, they will, as I said a moment ago in the context of the minister's amendment, place the responsibility for the entire question of conversions, renovations, demolition control, all that is contemplated in this bill, squarely with the municipality. The step to delegate responsibility from the provincial level to the municipal level is a direction we feel is important.

I remind the minister and the members that direction had been taken under the more narrowly focused condominium conversion policy, which had been in place and which this will expand and ultimately replace. The authority to be exercised by the Minister of Municipal Affairs or the Minister of Housing -- I am not sure who exercises it -- was delegated down to the regions, which took advice on the matter from the local municipalities.

That approach again recognized that housing markets vary dramatically across the province and that local conditions change. Municipalities are in the front line of understanding the pressures on the people in their area and in appreciating what is happening to affordable housing within their market area. They are the keys to the determinants on whether that affordable housing will be retained or expanded, or what other housing or development will occur.

Briefly, because I do not think it is necessary to speak at length on this, that is the reason for this set of amendments. I will add briefly, because I will not then speak on the others, that the same reasoning applies to the amendments I hope to introduce to delete the appeal to cabinet. Cabinet sits centrally here in Toronto, at a considerable distance from the local conditions.

My government had moved to reduce as much as possible the practice of appealing local decisions to cabinet. It pushed to delegate downwards the responsibility for decisions so that it would be perfectly clear that no municipal councillor and no municipal council could shrug off their prime responsibility for the people in their areas by simply having in mind that a decision, which on occasion might be a difficult one, could readily be appealed or removed from them to the Ontario Municipal Board and, as this act contemplates, later to cabinet.

Our view is that the municipal councils should be responsible and should have the capability of being responsible. We believe these amendments will give them the responsibility that is appropriate.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Fish has moved that subsections 7(10), 7(11) and 7(12) of the bill be deleted.

Shall the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(11) be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(11) Any person who is not satisfied with the decision of council may, not later than 20 days after the date of the decision, appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by filing with the clerk of the municipality a notice of appeal setting out the objection to the decision and the reasons in support of the objection."

Does the minister wish to comment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I have no comment.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Curling's amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(11a) If an application respecting a matter set out in sections 4 or 5 has been made to the Ontario Municipal Board prior to the coming into force of this act, this act applies unless the board has issued its decision."

Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No.

Motion agreed to.

6:10 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(12) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(12) The clerk of the municipality, upon receipt of a notice of appeal under subsection 10 or 11, shall compile a record and forward the notice of appeal and the record to the secretary of the board and shall provide such information or material as the board may require in respect of the appeal."

All those in favour of Hon. Mr. Curling's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay.

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 7 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(12a) The board shall hold a hearing and has the same authority as the council under subsection (5), but if all appeals have been withdrawn prior to the hearing, the decision of the council is final and binding and the secretary of the board shall notify the clerk of the municipality who in turn shall notify the applicant."

Shall Mr. Curling's amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(13) of the bill be amended by inserting after "given" in the seventh line "and that the provisions of this act leading to the approval have been complied with, and after the certificate has been given no action may be maintained to question the validity of the approval, but where a condition has been imposed, the certificate shall not be given until the council is satisfied that the condition has been fulfilled."

Shall Mr. Curling's amendment carry?

Motion agreed to.

Ms. Fish: I hesitate; I am going to get a logical inconsistency here.

I have an alternative amendment, which has been filed, which moves that subsection 7(13) be amended by deleting "or the Lieutenant Governor in Council, as the case may be," in the second and third lines.

There should be an alternative amendment in front of members. There was one to delete both "Ontario Municipal Board" and "Lieutenant Governor in Council." Obviously, that would be insensible, given where we are with the bill now.

Mr. Chairman: That is right.

Ms. Fish: I will simply move the amendment that deletes reference to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that subsection 7(13) be amended by inserting after "municipality" in the second line "or" and by deleting "or the Lieutenant Governor in Council" in the second and third lines.

Ms. Fish: This is in keeping with the principle I elaborated on earlier. I will not take the committee's time to review it, save to say we are saddened that there is an attempt to centralize in the cabinet decisions affecting local housing markets. We believe that should be pushed back to the municipality. Since that has not been accepted and there is a requirement of approval by the Ontario Municipal Board, we believe that at a minimum the pattern established by the previous government to reduce appeals from the municipal board to cabinet ought to be maintained in this legislation.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Fish's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Ms. Fish: I move that subsections 7(14) and (15) of the bill be deleted.

Mr. Wildman: That is out of order.

Ms. Fish: Actually, it is.

Mr. McClellan: You cannot move a deletion. You vote against the section, do you not?

Ms. Fish: Have we voted to adopt subsection 7(13), which has to be dealt with before we go on to subsection 7(14)?

Mr. Reville: Did we not carry an amendment to subsection 7(13)?

Ms. Fish: Subsection 7(13), as amended, has to be adopted, does it not?

Mr. Reville: We adopted the amendment. Let us get it moved as amended.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 7(13), as amended, carry? Carried.

Ms. Fish: To move the motion to delete the reference to Lieutenant Governor in Council while subsection 7(13) retains reference to a decision of the Lieutenant Governor in Council would create an intolerable circumstance for the bill. I, therefore, assume that the will of the House is that there continue to be appeals to cabinet, notwithstanding the objection of my party, and I will not proceed with the amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 7(14) of the bill be amended by striking out "order or" in the third line, in the sixth line and in the 12th line.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall subsection 7(14), as amended, carry? Carried.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

6:20 p.m.

On section 9:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that clause 9(a) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(a) exempting a municipality, or part thereof, from this act."

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that clause 9(b) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(b) exempting rental units or rental residential properties, or categories thereof, from this act."

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Curling moves that clause 9(c) of the bill be amended by inserting after "granted" in the second line "or refused."

Mr. Reville: Mr. Chairman, the train was going down the track, but there is an amendment to the government amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that clause 9(c) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(c) prescribing the criteria upon which approval may be granted by a municipality under subsection 4(1), provided that one criterion relates to adverse effects on the supply of affordable rental housing and that such criterion prohibits approval of an application in a municipality where the vacancy rate is less than four per cent."

Mr. Reville: Very briefly, the operative part of this bill is the criteria upon which a municipal council and the Ontario Municipal Board would make their decision. The criteria are contained in the regulations. Regulation 7.(1)4 speaks about the supply of affordable rental housing and an adverse effect the granting of approval under this bill would cause.

It strikes me that unless one connects that criterion with some observable, measurable, scientific criterion, such as the vacancy rate, it is a worthless criterion and unworthy of the minister. Therefore, my amendment should be adopted forthwith.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Reville's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: There is some time left for this bill. I move that the committee rise and report.

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

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Nixon moves that the House continue sitting no longer than 7:30 p. m.

Mr. Andrewes: I have a brief comment on that. We are in agreement with the motion. It is my understanding that we will complete Bill 11, give second reading to Bills 111 and 95 and then a number of third readings. That will complete this.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is correct.

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of the whole.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION ACT (CONTINUED)

Consideration of Bill 11, An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing.

On section 9:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling has moved that clause 9(c) of the bill be amended by inserting after "granted" in the second line "or refused".

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 9 of the bill be amended by adding thereto the following clause:

"(h) exempting sales of co-operative units, or any category thereof, from any of the provisions of the act."

Motion agreed to.

Section 9, as amended, agreed to.

6:30 p.m.

On section 10:

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 10(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) If all permits required under the Building Code Act and the Planning Act, 1983, for demolition, renovation or repair have been obtained prior to the coming into force of this act, the approval of the council under subsection 4(1) is not required and section 6 does not apply."

Mr. Reville moves that subsection 10(1) of the bill be amended by adding after the words "have been obtained" the words "and the landlord has vacant possession."

Mr. Reville: This is an amendment that addresses the concerns of transitional buildings which because of the delay of the bill are facing conversion, demolition or loss of housing, where the landlord has been able to get a writ of possession. This extends the protection for them.

Ms. Fish: Is the minister supporting this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No, I am not.

Ms. Gigantes: I want to draw to the minister's attention the problem he is going to create unless he agrees to the amendment presented by the member for Riverdale. There are some buildings, one of them very well known to him, 180 MacLaren Street in Ottawa, where the landlord has succeeded in getting a building permit. He does not yet have vacant possession, but he has building permits for renovations of some units and he will be looking for changes before the committee of adjustment dealing with other units.

The second category of units, once this legislation is in application, will not be turned from the affordable rental units they are now into the apartment-hotel units the landlord wishes to make them. In the meantime, he has managed to obtain a building permit that will convert two-bedroom units in some parts of the building into one-bedroom units for the purpose of use as apartment-hotel units. The minister is very well aware of that situation.

Unless we specify in an amendment such as the one put forward by the member for Riverdale that we want the building to be treated as a whole, we will create two kinds of units, not only within the legislation but also within one building. The building will be partly an affordable rental building and partly one where the landlord now has a building permit to change the nature of the units, increase the number of the units and turn them into use as apartment-hotel units.

That is the existing situation, and unless we have some amendment of this nature, we will have a building that is half converted and half not. Surely, it is our objective to maintain the whole building at this stage when the landlord does not have vacant possession.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The amendment here deals with the individual who has municipal approval already. We tried to make it fair for both sides, and it would be unfair to institute something after they have their permits.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Reville's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling has moved an amendment to subsection 10(1). Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 10(2) of the bill be amended by inserting after "act" in the second line, "or the Ontario Municipal Board has issued a decision approving an application for conversion."

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that subsection 10(3) of the bill be struck out.

Ms. Fish: Why does the minister want to strike out that section?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is inconsistent with the rest of the bill.

6:40 p.m.

Ms. Fish: Perhaps the minister could take a brief moment to explain how retaining subsection 10(3) creates an inconsistency that is a problem.

Let me take a brief moment to explain why I am a little troubled by the deletion and why I want to understand its effect. My concern stems from an interpretation that has been suggested to me, and I do not know whether it is accurate or reasonable. I hope the minister can help me.

If subsection 10(3) is deleted and there is a building where the existing tenants are in the process of buying co-operative shares in the building -- in other words, not an external co-ownership but an internal one -- the deletion would have the effect of removing the opportunity of proceeding from anyone other than the developer applying to convert the building to co-operative form.

As I say, that interpretation may be wrong. However, the suggestion was that maintaining subsection 10(3), with its reference to "the application of an interested person," would maintain the opportunity for those tenants, among others, who may have already purchased or contributed to the co-operative, to make application.

I would appreciate understanding from the minister whether that interpretation is right or wrong and what form of protection without this section the bill might provide to co-operative tenants who are part-way through a conversion.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It was felt that the subsection should be deleted because the municipal bylaw under this subsection would not subject it to an OMB appeal. It was also felt that the municipality would be permitted, under the regulation, to approve completion of conversion where it felt severe hardship would result from refusal of that condominium conversion.

Ms. Fish: Can the minister direct me to the proper clause in the regulation that does that? In doing so, will he share with me the trigger for that consideration? Can the trigger be a tenant who is part of a co-op part-way through conversion?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I refer the member to regulation 7.(1)2.

Ms. Fish: Can the minister tell me what the trigger is on that consideration? Subsection 10(3) of the bill indicates, "upon the application of an interested person." I have indicated the area of my concern, which is to protect those tenants who may already have purchased into the co-op from being able to make the application, not just the developer.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The trigger is any application to sell any unit.

Ms. Fish: I am sorry for seeming to ask the question several times, but I am having trouble getting an answer. I want to make it as simple as I can.

Is there any limit on who may make the application? It appears to me that regulation 7.(1)2 contemplates an application from the developer proposing the conversion. I and my party wish to be certain that we can afford an opportunity for tenants to make application and to be the trigger for that consideration.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I understand that the application of anyone who wants to sell the condominium unit can do that. A co-op unit can trigger that decision.

Ms. Fish: Therefore, the phrase "of an interested person" in subsection 10(3) of the bill would be as broad as what is contemplated in the regulations under section 7.(1)2. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Curling: If I understand the member properly, we are saying it has to be in the context of a sale. That is what we are trying to get across to her.

Ms. Fish: It is in the context contemplated by subsection 10(3), which provides for an application of an interested person in dealing with the shares of a co-operative.

I understood the minister to say he wants to delete that section in its entirety because he feels it is amply covered in the regulations. When I turn to the regulations, I do not quickly and readily find the wording that would appear to provide for the application of an interested person. Because I cannot find that and because of the timing of dealing with all this, I am asking the minister rather than wading through all the regulations.

I made the conclusion that the application is as contemplated generally in the regulations, which is not by any interested person but rather by the proponent of the scheme. That would trouble me. I hope the minister will establish the trigger as being any interested person, which would enable the tenant who might have purchased a co-operative share in a partially converted building to make application to the council.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We are actually agreeing. I wonder whether the member has the right regulation in the sense of the right page. Perhaps I can read 7.(1)2: "In the case of a sale of a share or interest in the co-operative, in the opinion of council undue hardship could result for a person who had previously purchased an interest and who has a right to present or future exclusive possession of the unit." That is it. Is the member with me?

Ms. Fish: I have it in front of me and I am reading it. The wording is different for an obvious reason: a different thing is being dealt with. I was asking for an opinion about the effect of substituting one for the other.

I will take the minister's word if he offers the assurance that the effect of the opportunity to apply in subsection 10(3) of "an interested person" is maintained in the regulation he cites, notwithstanding the deletion of subsection 10(3). If that is maintained, we have no objection to the deletion.

We feel strongly that the opportunity contemplated under subsection 10(3) for interested persons to apply should be maintained in the regulations, and we ask that the minister undertake to ensure this is the case.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member has my word that the protection is there.

Motion agreed to.

Section 10, as amended, agreed to.

On section 11:

The Deputy Chairman: Hon. Mr. Curling moves that section 11 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"11. Every person who contravenes section 4 or 5 or subsection 6(1) and every director or officer of a corporation who authorized, permitted or acquiesced in the contravention of section 4 or 5 or subsection 6(1) by the corporation is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $50,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or to both."

Motion agreed to.

6:50 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Ms. Fish moves that Bill 11 be amended thereto by adding the following section:

"11a. Where on or before May 5, 1986, approval and conditions have been granted by an area municipality under regulations made under the Planning Act, 1983, in respect of a conversion to a condominium, the Minister of Housing shall approve any application for approval or exemption of a description subject to the conditions approved by the area municipality."

Ms. Fish: This new section is really by way of dealing with coverage in transition. The section is limited to those proposals that had received final approval, complete with conditions, by the municipality on or before May 5. It does not grandfather any applications that did not receive their final approval; that is to say, it does not cover any applications that may have received an approval in principle, may have been referred back for further study, may have any conditions under analysis by a committee or whatever. They must have received their full and complete approval with conditions attached and be discharged from the municipal level in their entirety on or before May 5.

Mr. Reville: What does this do?

Ms. Fish: It provides for just those applications for conversion that had completed all of their municipal approval on or before May 5 and were awaiting only the delegated approval from the minister. It will not cover any application that was still in process at the municipal level at that time. It will not cover, therefore, anything that had been approved in principle but not finally, that had been approved in a preliminary way but referred back for further study or any other such halfway measure. It will be for only those that had been dealt with in their entirety and finally by the municipal council on or before May 5; in other words, not something that was hanging, in so far as the municipal council was concerned, on May 5, 1986.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of Ms. Fish's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"11a(1) Subsection 47(1) of the Land Titles Act, being chapter 230 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1980, is amended by adding thereto the following paragraph:

"14. The provision of section 5 of the Rental Housing Protection Act, 1986.

(2) Paragraph 14 of subsection 47(1) of the said act, as made by subsection (1), is repealed on the 30th day of June 1988."

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

On section 12:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves --

An hon. member: Carried.

Mr. Reville: Did someone say carried? Thanks very much.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"This act, except subsection 11a(2), is repealed on the 30th day of June 1988, or on the day an act whose purpose is to further protect rental housing receives royal assent, whichever day comes later."

Mr. Reville: I put that amendment in there to make it all nice. I have a very short speech on this matter. I do not have any objection to the government replacing this bill with a bill that has protection of rental housing as its intention, but I very much worry that if the bill sunsets out, the problem will not be solved. Therefore, I hope members will support this. What is that? The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) said he would support it; is that correct?

Ms. Fish: Is the minister accepting this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: No.

The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Curling moves that section 12 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"This act, except subsection 11a(2), is repealed on the 30th day of June 1988."

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Reville: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: For the record, how did you hear the vote on my amendment? Did you hear it carried or did you hear it lost?

The Deputy Chairman: Yours was lost.

Mr. Reville: Would it be too much to ask to have the vote again?

The Deputy Chairman: It was unanimously --

Mr. Reville: I am sorry; I am misinformed. I withdraw the whole thing.

Section 12, as amended, agreed to.

On section 13:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Reville moves that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"This act comes into force on the 22nd day of April 1986."

Mr. Reville: The intention of the amendment should be obvious. It makes the bill retroactive and protects rental housing.

Ms. Fish: What is the minister's position on this amendment?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am not supporting that.

7 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 13 agreed to.

Section 14 agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall the bill, as amended, be reported?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am informed by legislative counsel that the amendment to section 4(1)c that was accepted by the House is grammatically incomprehensible. With the consent of the House, we would like that section reopened for brief review.

Mr. Wildman: Is it the wording or the intent?

Mr. Reville: I thought it was appropriate to move an incomprehensible amendment to make it compatible with the rest of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am informed that the minister would like to review that section, but we can do so only with the consent of the House. The consent is not forthcoming.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there unanimous consent? No.

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

FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 111, An Act to amend the Family Law Act.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have a lengthy opening statement to make on the subject of this bill.

Some hon. members: Dispense.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Agreed, dispense?

As I made many of the remarks when I introduced the bill a few short days ago, I am confident the purpose of the bill and those remarks are still ringing in members' ears. I am delighted to record the co-operation of my critics in both parties, which I understand has led to support for this modification of the original act.

Mr. O'Connor: I confirm that our party is content that this matter pass on second reading. The amendments are housekeeping amendments to Bill 1, the Family Law Act recently passed by the House in all its stages. These matters perhaps should have been caught, amended and dealt with at the committee stage of dealing with Bill 1. However, after some comment and representation by certain lawyers and segments of the insurance community, it is deemed wise and appropriate at this point to amend several sections to assist better the distribution of insurance proceeds, particularly to widows. Therefore, we are quite content that the matter pass all the stages today.

Ms. Gigantes: We too will be supporting the passage of this bill as quickly as possible. Let me just say I think the reason we have this bill before us may speak more to the bad faith of insurance companies in Ontario than it does to any failure of our standing committee on administration of justice in dealing with Bill 1.

I suggest to the minister it is kind of him to say we are co-operative: in fact, we urged him forward on this. We are grateful to have the amendments, which will provide justice for the spouses of deceased persons.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE FORCE COMPLAINTS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 95, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I introduced this bill earlier. I remind members of the House that it is a bill designed to permit appointments to be made to effect the quasi-judicial determinations required under the police complaint process in Metropolitan Toronto in the event that any participant of the process fails to make the joint written submission by way of appointment, a case which has actually occurred in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to thank members for their ungrudging support. Allow me to say in advance that if they wish to take credit for this, as they take credit for the previous bill, I would be delighted to have them do so.

Mr. O'Connor: In that event, I would be glad to take credit for this bill. I can confirm that our party is quite content that this matter, which again is a housekeeping matter, be passed in all its stages today.

Ms. Gigantes: We too support this bill. We refuse to take any credit for it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like to call order 61 in Orders and Notices. This is by agreement of the House leaders.

REPORT, STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the recommendations contained in the report of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly on simultaneous interpretation.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you are aware that plans are being made under the auspices of the Board of Internal Economy, the board which you chair, for substantial renovations to this chamber, including improvement of the television facilities.

In passing, I want to say to the gentlemen who have been responsible for the great television coverage -- and I do not mean the members of the Legislature, but the people running the cameras -- how much we appreciate their assiduity in this matter. In addition to the money we are paying them, they have had the opportunity to hear some of the best speeches anywhere at any time.

It is hoped that simultaneous translation facilities may well be installed during the renovations, but this is the responsibility of the Board of Internal Economy. The order I have called is a response of this House to the recommendation made by the all-party committee calling for the inclusion of simultaneous interpretation in the renovations that are considered. I hope the House will support this report.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revert to motions.

Agreed to.

MOTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Copies of a number of interesting motions have been circulated. I am not sure every member has them, but I think there are enough so there would be general agreement that information is available to all parties.

7:10 p.m.

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the following standing and select committees be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates agreed to by the three party whips and tabled with the Clerk of the assembly, to examine and inquire into the following matters:

Select committee on economic affairs, to consider the implications to Ontario of bilateral trade. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in North America.

Select committee on health, to consider the role of the commercial, for-profit sector of health and social service, and to recommend what role the commercial, for-profit sector should play in the provision of human services in Ontario; that an interim report of the committee be submitted to the assembly not later than six months after the committee begins meeting and that a final report be submitted to the assembly not later than one year after the committee begins meeting; that such transcripts of the committee's proceedings be provided by the Hansard reporting service as may be ordered by the committee; and that the committee report to the assembly on the following specific areas of investigation:

Current and future provision of human services by the commercial sector, appropriate models for provision of specific human services, and mechanisms for public accountability, including access to appropriate information on enforcement of standards and other matters deemed appropriate.

Further, the select committee shall collect relevant data by, (1) requiring the ministries and departments engaged in service provision in the specified fields to report to the select committee; (2) surveying approaches and experiences of other jurisdictions; (3) preparing and tabling background information and preliminary analysis of the data bank, including information on the structure, regulatory mechanisms, funding and government expenditures, current government policies and future plans, and effects on quality, accessibility and staffing. Preliminary analysis shall include appropriate trend analysis and identification of key policy questions; and (4) soliciting feedback, advice and additional information through (a) public hearings and (b) testimony of expert witnesses.

Standing committee on administration of justice, to consider Bill 105, An Act to provide Pay Equity for Employees in Predominantly Female Groups of Jobs in the Public Service.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs, to consider the issue of corporate concentration and takeover activity as it relates to Ontario and to report its recommendations for an appropriate Ontario response to the Legislature by October 31, 1986. The committee shall have the authority to adjourn from place to place in Canada.

Standing committee on general government, to review and report on the School Boards and Teachers Collective Negotiations Act, RSO 1980, chapter 464, and to consider Bill 71, An Act to protect the Public Health and Comfort and the Environment by Prohibiting and Controlling Smoking in Public Places.

Standing committee on government agencies, to review the operation of agencies, boards and commissions of the government of Ontario. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in North America, subject to the approval of the Board of Internal Economy.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, to consider the compliance with the conflict of interest guidelines by René Fontaine; the rules and procedures of the House; Bill 34, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy; and the estimates of the office of the chief election officer.

The committee shall also consider the matter of the appointment of the Clerk of the House in accordance with recommendation 18 contained in the report of the standing committee now before the House; that the committee be authorized to release its report on the new Clerk of the House during the adjournment by depositing a copy of the report with the Clerk of the House; and that upon the release of the report of the committee on the new Clerk of the House, the Speaker shall transmit the name of the successful candidate to the Lieutenant Governor in Council for appointment, subject to such terms and conditions as the Lieutenant Governor in Council may determine.

The assembly doth command and compel attendance before the said committee of such persons and the production of such papers and things as the committee may deem necessary for any of its proceedings and deliberations, for which the Speaker may issue his warrant pursuant to subsection 35(2) of the Legislative Assembly Act. The committee shall have authority to adjourn from place to place in North America.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman, to consider the annual report of the Ombudsman of Ontario for the year ending March 31, 1986, and the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman.

Standing committee on public accounts, to consider the annual reports of the Provincial Auditor for the fiscal years ended March 31, 1984, and March 31, 1985, the matter of the domed stadium financing, the annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985, the alleged conflict of interest concerning the member for Oriole (Ms. Caplan) and the estimates of the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

Standing committee on resources development, to consider Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents Charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes, and the 1985 annual report of the Workers' Compensation Board, in accordance with subsection 85(2) of the Workers' Compensation Act, following the tabling of the report with the Clerk of the Assembly. The proceedings of the committee on the annual report shall be transcribed by the Hansard reporting service and appended to the debates of the House.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that standing and select committees be authorized to release their reports during the summer adjournment by depositing a copy of any report with the Clerk of the assembly, and upon the resumption of the sittings of the House, the chairmen of such committees shall bring any such reports before the House in accordance with the standing orders.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, with the agreement of the House leaders and whips of each party, committees may meet during the summer adjournment at times other than those specified in the schedule tabled with the Clerk today.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the membership on the standing and select committees be as follows:

Select committee on economic affairs: Mr. D. R. Cooke, chairman; Mr. Barlow, Mrs. Caplan, Messrs. Cordiano, Ferraro, Mackenzie, McFadden, McGuigan, Morin-Strom, Miss Stephenson and Mr. Taylor.

Select committee on health: Mr. Callahan, chairman; Messrs. Andrewes, Baetz, D. S. Cooke , R. F. Johnston, Poirier, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Sargent, Miss Stephenson and Mr. Turner.

Standing committee on administration of justice: Messrs. Brandt, Charlton, Ms. Fish, Ms. Gigantes, Ms. Hart, Messrs. O'Connor, Offer, Partington, Polsinelli, D. W. Smith and Villeneuve.

Standing committee on finance and economic affairs: Messrs. Ashe, Barlow, D. R. Cooke, Ferraro, Foulds, Haggerty, Henderson, Mackenzie, McFadden, Miss Stephenson and Mr. Ward.

Standing committee on general government: Mr. Allen, Ms. Bryden, Messrs. Cousens, Dean, Guindon, Ms. Hart, Messrs. Henderson, McCague, McGuigan, Pollock and Reycraft.

Standing committee on the Legislative Assembly: Messrs. Bossy, Breaugh, J. M. Johnson, Laughren, Mancini, Martel, Morin, Newman, Sterling, Treleaven and Turner.

Standing committee on the Ombudsman: Messrs. Bossy, Hayes, Hennessy, Mancini, McLean, McNeil, Morin, Newman, Philip, Sheppard and Shymko.

Standing committee on public accounts: Messrs. Epp, Ferraro, Gillies, Gregory, Harris, G. I. Miller, Philip, Pope, Runciman, D. W. Smith and Wildman.

Standing committee on resources development: Messrs. Bernier, Cordiano (for Bill 51), Epp (for Bill 51), Knight, Laughren, Mancini (for WCB hearings), McKessock (for WCB hearings), Pierce, Poirier (for WCB hearings), Ramsay, Reville, Ms. E. J. Smith (for Bill 51), Stevenson and Taylor.

Messrs. Gregory, Hayes, Lane, Leluk, Mrs. Marland, Messrs. McKessock, Poirier, Rowe, D. W. Smith, South, Swart, and Mr. Ward (for Mr. Poirier while the committee is travelling).

Mr. Andrewes: These terms of reference have been discussed with the critics of the various parties. I hope we have reached some agreement.

Mr. McClellan: A great deal of work has been put into the development of the terms of reference and the schedules of the committees. Most of the work was done by the whips for each of the three parties. They deserve a great vote of thanks.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: To explain this small hesitation, there was a motion to direct the committee on the appointment of a Clerk.

Mr. McClellan: It is in there.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is in there? I am sorry; I should have read it more carefully.

ADJOURNMENT OF HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that when the House adjourns today it stand adjourned until October 14, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 11, An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing;

Bill 54, An Act to Authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specific Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs;

Bill 55, An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved third reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act.

L'hon. M. Conway: Je propose l'adoption de la troisième lecture du projet de loi 75.

Subject to an understanding, there will be a very brief discussion on third reading of Bill 75. Very briefly, on behalf of the government, I want to indicate once again how pleased we are to see this very important and historic legislation enacted in Ontario this afternoon. This gives effect to the very important commitment that the francophone minority in this province will be guaranteed representation in those schools and programs where French is the first language in the Ontario school system.

This has been accomplished over the course of many weeks and months with the participation of a goodly number of members of this assembly. This important and very intricate legislation reflects this government's commitment to minority-language education and guarantees those rights in the province.

In introducing the bill this past December, I indicated we would be establishing in the national capital area a French-language board for 1988. In January, a committee under the direction of Albert Roy was established to recommend the best way to implement the creation of this board in the 1988 school board elections. I am expecting the recommendations of that committee later this summer.

The government believes the Ottawa-Carleton region should have such a French-language board because of the very special and unique circumstances in the national capital area. That is why I have repeatedly stated the government's intentions to create such a French-language board in the national capital area and in the national capital area only.

However, while this legislation was being examined in the standing committee on general government, it became apparent to me that members of this assembly, most notably the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), supported, particularly yesterday, by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon), have a desire to explore this concept in other areas of the province. As well, the francophone community has repeatedly expressed its desire for further consideration of this matter.

While government policy remains unchanged, I am once again reminded of the realities of minority government. Therefore, I am announcing today that the government has agreed to sponsor a study of the regional French-language school board issue. This study, to be completed within two years, will consider the organization, structure, trustee representation, boundaries, impact and cost of creating such boards elsewhere in the province.

En terminant, j'aimerais simplement réitérer que je suis très heureux d'avoir réussi, grâce aux efforts et à la coopération de tous, à mener le projet de loi 75 à bonne fin. Je suis convaincu que ces mesures législatives ne feront qu'améliorer les services éducatifs rendus à la population francophone de notre province.

Mr. Allen: I rise to support this legislation on behalf of my party. I am pleased the minister and his staff have brought a long-standing project to its completion.

Les Néo-Démocrates appuient le projet de loi 75 et les résultats du processus d'amendements du comité. On a longtemps attendu cette législation qui établira un régime substantiel de gérance de leurs propres écoles par les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. C'est leur droit.

C'est un projet très important, mais néanmoins il reste une demi-mesure. Je suis heureux d'avoir persuadé le Ministre à commencer une étude définitive au sujet des conseils scolaires régionaux pour Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes. Vraiment, le Ministre comprend la politique minoritaire. Après ce projet de loi, les conseils scolaires de langue française en Ontario sont la prochaine étape et le défi crucial.

We support Bill 75 now, as we have done from the beginning.

7:20 p.m.

Mr. Davis: I am very pleased to rise on this historic occasion and give the support of our party to Bill 75. I point out that the majority of Bill 75 is a reiteration of Bill 28, which we introduced and which was withdrawn by the Liberal government. I expect the committee the minister is going to institute will be in place by September 1. We are very happy on this occasion.

M. Guindon: Je veux seulement prendre quelques secondes pour exprimer à quel point je suis fier que l'Assemblée législative ait adopté ou soit en train d'adopter le projet de loi 75.

Aussi, je voudrais prendre quelques secondes pour mentionner que je suis un peu désolé du fait qu'on n'a pas pu inclure l'amendement proposé par le député de Hamilton Ouest (M. Allen), amendement qui voulait que le Ministre chargerait une commission de tracer des limites territoriales en vue de la création de conseils régionaux de langue française à travers la province.

Tout de même, je suis fier de l'énoncé du ministre de l'Education qui apporte au moins un commencement à ce qu'on aimerait avoir plus tôt que tard, que les francophones puissent s'organiser et gérer leurs propres commissions scolaires à travers l'Ontario. Je suis fier de supporter la troisième lecture du projet de loi 75.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate in the debate? Are there any final comments by the minister?

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act;

Bill 95, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984;

Bill 97, An Act to amend the Wine Content Act;

Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing;

Bill 111, An Act to amend the Family Law Act, 1986;

Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1986 sur le droit de la famille.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon. Mr. Alexander: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 11, An Act respecting the Protection of Rental Housing;

Bill 54, An Act to authorize and Regulate the Payment by the Minister to Specified Persons on Behalf of Specified Classes of Persons for the Dispensing of Specified Drugs;

Bill 55, An Act to provide for the Protection of the Public in respect of the Cost of Certain Prescription Drugs;

Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 77, An Act to revise the Representation Act;

Bill 95, An Act to amend the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984;

Bill 97, An Act to amend the Wine Content Act;

Bill 103, An Act to revise the Election Finances Reform Act and to amend certain other Acts respecting Election Financing;

Bill 109, An Act to amend the Health Disciplines Act;

Bill 111, an Act to amend the Family Law Act, 1986;

Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1986 sur le droit de la famille.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 7:29 p.m.

10 juillet 1986