Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NUCLEAR POWER

Mr Conway: I rise on behalf of my constituents in Renfrew county, more particularly those constituents of mine who work at the Chalk River Nuclear Laboratory. That would be some 2,000 people. These constituents are increasingly concerned about and by the energy policy of the new government in Ontario.

More specifically, the new Minister of Energy, the honourable member for Peterborough, has on a number of occasions articulated a very strong personal view against the future of nuclear power in Ontario. As Minister of Energy, she has directed Ontario Hydro to renegotiate its recently concluded agreement with Atomic Energy of Canada. This ministerial directive has already caused a very real concern in my community.

I might add that the Ottawa Valley press last week reported that one multimillion-dollar contract has already been affected and a number of jobs, in this case at Sheridan Park, may very well be in jeopardy as a result of that ministerial directive. The city of Pembroke, at a meeting last week, passed a resolution expressing its concern about the new energy policy and about its confidence in the nuclear power option for Ontario.

My constituents in Chalk River and elsewhere want me to convey to the new government and to this Legislature their belief that nuclear power has an important and positive role to play in the future energy policy of this province and they expect that it will be given a fair and balanced hearing as we move forward to develop a balanced and sensible energy policy for Ontario in the 21st century.

MATTAWA AND DISTRICT ARTS COUNCIL

Mr Eves: I am pleased to rise in the House today to welcome the members of the Mattawa and District Arts Council who are here from the riding of Parry Sound. For those who are returning members, they will be aware of the rotating art display in my office provided by this council.

I am pleased to announce that the Mattawa and District Arts Council has arranged for a new display in my office of several excellent paintings done by a very prominent artist, Clemo Duval, who is here with us today. These works are titled Life Line and Flying Out of the Painting.

The Mattawa and District Arts Council was formed in the spring of 1989 and serves to promote the work of local artists and craftspeople. I think it is indeed an honour to have such talented people, not only in the riding of Parry Sound but in all ridings in the province of Ontario, and we as Ontarians and Canadians should be doing everything we can to promote their very valuable work.

BRIDGE REPAIRS

Ms Haeck: Since his appointment on 1 October, the Minister of Transportation has repeatedly stated his commitment to improve roads and maximize transportation safety in Ontario. It gives me great pleasure to announce to the House today a number of contracts and initiatives which exemplify this government's commitment to better and safer highways.

I am especially pleased that these announcements directly benefit Ontarians in my own riding of St Catharines-Brock. On 28 November, a contract valued at $1,842,700 was awarded to C. H. Heist Ltd for surface preparation and coating of existing structural steel on the Garden City Skyway along the Queen Elizabeth Way at St Catharines. As part of the ongoing maintenance program for this 30-year-old structure, repainting, which normally takes place only during warm weather, will be accelerated. A 33-metre section will be painted between January and March, and the balance completed by the end of September. This will cut the necessary delay and inconvenience to bridge users by three months.

On 12 December, tenders will be opened for structural rehabilitation of four bridges at Highways 406 and 58 at the St David's Road interchange in St Catharines. The estimated value of this contract is $700,000. Over the years these four bridges have suffered structural deterioration due to exposure to salt spray. This has resulted in damage to concrete decks and leakage due to corrosive salt and dirt accumulations.

We thank the minister for his consideration.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mrs McLeod: I am always pleased, as I would expect all members are, when the hard work and dedication of people in the community that I represent are recognized. Today, I am proud to have the opportunity to congratulate Rosemary Collins, a resident of Thunder Bay, who on Friday 7 December 1990 was awarded a community action award by the Ontario Office for Disabled Persons. The award was given to honour the outstanding contributions that Ms Collins has made to the disabled persons' community in Thunder Bay.

The list of organizations with which Ms Collins has been involved is a long and distinguished one. A rehabilitation counsellor with the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the past 14 years, she has served as a member of the Lakehead Association for Community Living, the Lakehead Social Planning Council, the Thunder Bay Therapeutic Recreation Committee, the Handicapped Action Group Inc, housing and tenant selection committees, the Thunder Bay Volunteer Action Centre, the family services committee of the Red Cross and the March of Dimes women with disabilities committee. This is just a sample of Ms Collins's work.

Thunder Bay is a city which owes much to residents committed to community involvement. The level of Ms Collins's involvement sets a high standard for others to follow.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to remind the Minister of the Environment of a situation in my riding, of which she is already aware. As she knows, her ministry approved a waste management study for Grey. With the blessing of her officials, the city of Owen Sound joined in and formed a partnership with Grey in terms of the study. Ministry personnel began supplying advice because the local field staff, by their own admission, have little expertise in the area of waste management. Now the assigned expert is on maternity leave and her replacement is not available because of a shift in ministerial priorities. As a result, after a year of hard work the study has come to a halt.

This is a most unfortunate situation, because my riding has approximately five landfill sites which are quickly reaching their limit and several more which are presently operating under a ministerial certificate because they are already full.

Nothing can be done without the study, and the study cannot proceed without the assistance from the ministry. Grey is trying to do its best for its people and waste management, but it does need help from the minister. County council is disheartened because it feels the government has pulled the rug out from under it.

I would appreciate the minister's looking into this matter and advising me or Grey council of any assistance she can provide.

1340

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Lessard: I mentioned on Monday that the mayor of Windsor has formed a task force to respond to the recent decision to close CBET-TV. The strategy of this task force is to impress upon the entire country the incredible anger and sense of loss felt as a result of this decision. It is to point out that Windsor is almost totally surrounded by the United States and that in many areas of Essex, Kent and Lambton counties viewers will have no alternative but to watch American news and programming.

This will radically change the perception that we have of ourselves. We are not like Americans, nor do we ever want to be. This decision tears at the very fabric of Canada. The effect on national unity is devastating.

"CBC and you" -- that is how the promotional ads go. CBC is us; it is our friends and it is our neighbours. But with this loss in Windsor it is becoming next to impossible to know ourselves.

I urge CBC to reconsider its decision to close CBET. Consider the incredible stupidity and waste of tax dollars, stopping the work of 80 employees but continuing to pay those persons until April. This is the ultimate gag order. Why not let these people continue to provide service to the community? Show some fairness and give the community a chance to respond to this catastrophe. I urge CBC not to strip the equipment from this station. I urge this government to pass a resolution condemning this destructive act.

Mr Mancini: I am also going to give a statement on the decision of the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. We all know what has happened during the past week. We all know that station CBET in Windsor has been closed, and we all know what has happened in the Legislature over the past week also. We saw last week, or I should say early this week, a half-hearted question from the member for Windsor-Walkerville to the Minister of Culture and Communications asking him whether or not TVOntario would be able and willing to fill the void. Today we witnessed another half-hearted statement attacking the government of Canada for doing this terrible thing but in fact not putting the government of Ontario on notice, I say to the member, that maybe the government, with its vast resources through TVOntario, should be able to do something for the people of Windsor, Essex county, Kent, Lambton, Sarnia, Chatham and area.

There was a time in the Legislature when the people of Windsor had fighters for Windsor in the Legislature, and half-hearted answers from ministers were not accepted. There was a time when ministers could not say, "Well, it is not our mandate to do this, so we cannot do it." I say to the Minister of Culture and Communications, he is in the cabinet. He and his cabinet colleagues who run the government of Ontario have the power to change the mandate of TVOntario and they have the power to serve Windsor, Essex, Kent, Lambton and Sarnia.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Jordan: I rise today to inform the Minister of Energy that her solutions for dealing with high gasoline prices are simply not acceptable to the residents of rural Ontario, including many from my riding of Lanark-Renfrew.

On Tuesday of last week the minister, in response to a question from the member for Brampton South, told this House: "One way of avoiding the consequences of increasing prices is to use less." I would put it to the minister that this is not an option available to many members of my constituency.

In Almonte and Carleton Place, two towns in my riding, close to 50% of their populations work in Ottawa -- about 60 miles return. These people have no choice but to drive to their jobs. Smiths Falls and Arnprior, both 50 miles from Ottawa, have about 20% of their population commuting every day. An estimated 10% to 20% of Perth's residents commute 110 miles every day to Ottawa, and 10% of Renfrew's residents make the 120-mile trip daily.

The Premier and other members of his party clamoured loudly about the unfairness of gasoline prices while in opposition. Now the Minister of Energy asks us to stop complaining and reduce our consumption.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Mr O'Connor: It is with great honour that I speak today and I would like to reflect for a moment on a special awards ceremony that took place last Tuesday in the midst of a snowstorm up in my riding. There were special awards presented to Jim Quinn, Ted Quinn Jr and David Joyce. In a heroic gesture without thought to their own lives, they pulled four people whose boat was sinking out on Lake Simcoe out of the frigid waters on 14 April of this year. A special presentation was made to them.

Also during that awards ceremony, Junior Citizens of the Year Alison Armitage and Jody Hanna were presented with certificates. A special service recognition award was give to Anne Eecloo and Citizen of the Year Mavis Gulyas this past week during the middle of a snowstorm. They were all able to attend.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CONFLICT OF INTEREST / CONFLIT D'INTÉRETS

Hon Mr Rae: I am pleased to announce that today I will be tabling a new set of guidelines with respect to conflict of interest. The 31 articles of these guidelines will impose upon cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants clearer standards of conduct than those imposed by existing conflict of interest legislation and policies. These guidelines do not replace the existing standards or the law that was passed in the previous Parliament, but rather they extend and strengthen them.

First, I consider it essential to establish certain fundamental principles. It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government. Ministers are not to be involved in contracts with the government. Members of their immediate families are to be eligible for contracts, including contracts of employment, only through an open system of competition and tenders. There will be clear public disclosure of any such contracts obtained through the government.

My government has long been committed to the view that the most appropriate way for members to avoid conflicts is to divest themselves of potentially conflicting interests. Accordingly, I am directing my ministers and parliamentary assistants to divest themselves of all financial interests, including business interests, which cause or could appear to cause a conflict unless they can demonstrate that divestment would cause undue hardship and that the public interest will continue to be protected. These divestments must be made at arm's length and not to family members. At the same time, we must respect the right of spouses to independence in their business affairs. Therefore, the divestment policy will not be extended to them. However, the more stringent disclosure rules will ensure that their financial interests are subject to full public scrutiny.

Ministers and parliamentary assistants will be given 60 days to comply with these requirements and any decisions to retain such interest will be made public. In this context it should be noted that under the guidelines parliamentary assistants will now be subject to the same duties that ministers have under the Members' Conflict of Interest Act. To guard against acquiring new conflicts, a prohibition is placed on acquiring land other than for personal residential, recreational or farm use.

La divulgation ne suffira pas à elle seule à éviter les conflits mais elle aidera le public à suivre de près la conduite du gouvernement. Par conséquent, j'exige une divulgation plus large et plus détaillée des intérêts financiers et des changements importants relativement à ces intérêts. Je crois comprendre que le commissaire a pour règle de demander aux députés de divulguer les changements importants. Je suis heureux d'appliquer cette politique par ces lignes directrices.

Few principles are more fundamental to our democratic system than the independence of our justice system. Accordingly, we set out in some detail guidelines regarding communication with judges, tribunals, prosecutors and the police, mindful that these guidelines are part of and subject to the fundamental duty to maintain public confidence and trust.

I would also point out in this connection that I am specifically requiring that ministers and parliamentary assistants inform me if they are charged with an offence or made party to a proceeding in which their character is put in issue.

In my view these guidelines are only part of a process we must continue. The guidelines are limited to those matters which do not require legislative implementation. We are recommending that a comprehensive review of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act be conducted in consultation with the other parties. It is my hope that this review can begin in the new year. We believe that many of the standards we are adopting today could be applied to all members of the Legislative Assembly. We would also like to hear from the commissioner what amendments he suggests for changing the legislation.

1350

In this regard, I hope that the commissioner will find the guidelines helpful in his dealings with ministers and parliamentary assistants, and that he will provide whatever assistance he can consistent with his statutory authority and his independence as an officer of the Legislative Assembly.

We are also developing a code of conduct for senior public servants and ministers' confidential staff. As most if not all of these individuals are crown employees, it is more appropriate that they be included in the ongoing review of the Public Service Act.

As committed as I am to the establishment of guidelines and codes in legislation on ethics in government, I realize all too well that nothing we commit to writing can substitute for common sense and a well-developed sense of public duty.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce that I have asked my parliamentary assistant, the member for Cochrane North, to conduct a review of my ministry's current lottery system for allocating moose tags.

The review will provide hunters, tourist outfitters and other interested parties with an opportunity to express their concerns about the moose tag lottery system, and it will help my ministry to ensure that we have the fairest system possible for the allocation of the tags.

The moose tag lottery system was designed in 1983 --

Mr Scott: Why don't you talk about the moose once or twice? The moose haven't had a break from this government since you came in.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: I have the impression they do not think it is important to talk about moose tags. As I was saying before the moose over there interrupted, the moose tag lottery system was designed in 1983 to place predictable limits on the harvest of adult moose in order to protect the breeding stock. The goal of the program is to double the moose population by the year 2000. In the past seven years, the moose population has increased to 120,000 from 80,000.

Because of the restrictions on moose harvest and the increased number of people who want to hunt, in some parts of the province there are now many more hunters than there are tags available for allocation. Some hunters would like to make changes in the current lottery method of allocating the harvest among competing hunters.

The review will include public meetings. These will be scheduled to take place between 18 January and 2 March 1991 in Toronto, London, Pembroke, Sault Ste Marie, Sudbury, Timmins, Hearst, Kapuskasing, Thunder Bay and Kenora. Concerned parties may present their written submissions at the meetings or send them directly to the member for Cochrane North.

The member for Cochrane North will submit a preliminary report to me on 15 March. His final report and recommendations will guide me as I decide on what changes are needed to improve the fairness of the moose tag lottery system.

The Ministry of Natural Resources has already been assessing the moose tag lottery in an effort to make the system even more fair. One possibility is the introduction of a group application system, by which a group of hunters may jointly apply for a moose tag. Such a system is aimed at distributing moose tags even more evenly among groups of hunters.

The group tag application system will be discussed during the review of the member for Cochrane North. A decision on whether to introduce such a system will be announced 15 March. Should the ministry decide to introduce a group application system, it will be put in place in time for the 1991 season.

This government is committed to consulting with and involving user groups in the management of our resources. The review of the moose tag lottery system will provide concerned citizens with a public forum in which to voice their opinions, and it will ensure that moose tags are allocated in a manner that hunters will find even more equitable.

RESPONSES

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr Ramsay: The minister mistakes our noise over here as support for what he is trying to do. I am pleased that the minister mentions that the previous administration really did start to analyse the group application system. I think what that does for the people in the House here is recognize that moose hunting is more than just the consumptive sport that it is perceived to be, but also that people look for the camaraderie of the hunt and also to have the wilderness experience as other people do. I wish him well in that.

Part of the gales of laughter is, though, that we get an announcement on the moose hunt while the minister makes an announcement to the press yesterday about the tree audit, as we have here in this article today, talking to the press. We would like to see more details on that and hope that very serious announcement comes here to the House soon.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr Sorbara: I intend to respond to the Premier's statement regarding his new guidelines on conflict of interest. It is interesting that in the first few months of this government we have found New Democratic Party members who have abused the use of government stationery, New Democratic members who have abused the use of their offices, New Democratic members who have been thrown out of the caucus, by the caucus, in private, without any public disclosure of the basis for that ejection from the NDP caucus, and New Democratic members who have misused municipal funds and stationery in pursuit of their own election campaigns.

What is so outstanding about these new guidelines -- we acknowledge on this side of the House that divestiture seems to be the order of the day -- is that it is interesting that if these guidelines are actually put into place, it means that no small business person in this province can ever expect to get into cabinet; that is to say, if he owns a hardware store or she perhaps owns a feed mill or some other business, in order to qualify for Mr Rae's cabinet it will not be permitted.

There are, however, some exceptions, and what is interesting about the exceptions is that notwithstanding that we passed an act in this House that set up an independent commissioner, the exception to the rules and the person who will determine whether or not that exception stands is none other than the Premier himself.

Let us look at the section. It says that ministers are required to divest themselves of any asset or liability which could cause or potentially cause a conflict, and all business interests. It goes on to say that except where the minister satisfies this, it is the Premier -- not the conflict of interest commissioner but the Premier and Ross McClellan and David Reville -- who will, in private, look over the business interests and see if that individual can or cannot qualify for cabinet.

This is a shocking departure from a statute that has been respected all over Canada and North America as the single most important piece of conflict of interest legislation passed in North America. The Premier has gone beyond all of that. He says in this document, his new guidelines which he is tabling today, that the Premier will be the arbitrator of which business interests cause or do not cause a conflict.

I cannot believe. having participated in the debate dealing with conflict of interest and having assisted the then Attorney General in formulating that legislation and having agreed that this was a good idea to put in statute, that the Premier would now table guidelines requiring any potential cabinet minister and any potential parliamentary assistant to sell everything that he has. He cannot do anything with that money except keep it in the bank. He cannot buy shares in Imperial Oil because Imperial Oil might buy a piece of land and these guidelines prohibit the purchase of land directly or indirectly.

There is a caveat, and the caveat is sitting right over there across from me in the Premier's chair. I cannot believe that after all we have been through, the Premier of this province would decide that he and he alone will be the arbiter of what is or is not a conflict.

It goes on to set up the Premier as the arbiter in other instances. Beyond that, he says that there are new guidelines with respect to communication and the administration of justice. I have looked at them. They are no different from the guidelines that existed before. Communication with tribunals and ministries are no different from the guidelines that Liberal cabinet ministers adhered to. Additional restrictions add nothing except, again, the prohibition against purchasing any land whatever, directly or indirectly, unless the Premier of this province decides in his wisdom that it is okay.

This is a shocking departure from a system that was fair to all concerned under the legislation.

1400

Mr Perruzza: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: The former speaker insinuated that I somehow abused my privileges as a councillor with respect to stationery. It was widely --

Mr Sorbara: I didn't mention your name or your riding. What are you talking about? Is this a confession? Talk to Bob. Don't talk to me.

Mr Scott: This is the one chance the NDP will give him to speak. Let him speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I expect that all members will allow any member to put forward what she or he believes to be a point of privilege, and will allow the Speaker the opportunity to assess the statement made. Let us give the member for Downsview the courtesy of listening.

Mr Perruzza: If the member had checked my printing expenses from the year I was elected to the year that I ordered the other stationery, he would have found that I used the same amount of stationery. It cost me $1,200, which is $1,400 less than the average in the city of North York. In the way of community meetings and so on, I did much more than any other member on that council. The member will find, if he checks the expenditures for the councillors for this year and for the period that I was on North York council. that my expenses were much lower than the average in the --

Mr Eves: You didn't make the Premier happy with your point of privilege. If you could have seen his face, you are in deep trouble.

Mr Jackson: Any other secrets over there?

The Speaker: If nothing else, everyone is obviously refreshed after the long sitting last night. To the member for Downsview, I listened very closely to the remarks by the member for York Centre and there was no mention of any individual's name or riding.

Mr Sterling: I want to comment on the Premier's announcements on conflict of interest guidelines. I am absolutely amazed that the member for York Centre is a respondent for the official opposition, because of the number of problems that were cited by the conflict commissioner during his period as the minister and that government's watering down of the conflict of interest guidelines in 1985 to accommodate many ministers of the former government. I could not understand how this party can possibly criticize an improvement in terms of the conflict of interest guidelines.

I want to say to the Premier, however, that he still has to go some distance to go back to 1972. I want to talk about three or four specific cases with regard to his conflict of interest guidelines. In 1972, Premier Davis then said that no private company in which a minister or his family has an interest could become contractually involved with the government of Ontario. The Premier, in essence, has watered that clause down by saying that some members of the family of one of his cabinet ministers or parliamentary assistants can become contractually involved with the government.

We would ask the Premier to tighten that up further, because regardless of whether or not he likes it, he leaves a wide-open door for abuse to come into effect in terms of family members getting preferential treatment with regard to contractual arrangements with his government.

The second area I would like to talk about is that Mr Davis required in 1972 that ministers and their families had to divest themselves of all holdings in public corporations. Under the Premier's plan, a spouse or members of the family -- the immediate members of the family -- can hold shares in public corporations. I think that is a definite weakness in terms of the Premier's guidelines.

Under the guidelines back in 1972, Mr Davis required all cabinet ministers to divest themselves of all lands save and except for residential land or recreational land, and that included as well the requirement with regard to family members. That was in part a requirement of the guidelines at that time. I would ask the Premier to toughen the guidelines with regard to requiring other family members to divest themselves of those other kinds of land save and except as was set out in the guidelines of 1972.

Last but not least, when we were considering the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in the last Parliament or the Parliament before -- I cannot remember which -- our party stood hard and fast for the requirement that deputy ministers of the government be required to follow the same exact guidelines as cabinet ministers and parliamentary assistants. It has been our experience that deputy ministers are often in a better place to take advantage of any kind of contractual arrangements with the government than the elected politicians might be.

If the Premier tightens those guidelines, I think he will not have the problems that the former government had in terms of meeting public expectations and the number of ministers who had to resign as a result of either real conflicts or perceived conflicts.

MOOSE TAG LOTTERY

Mr B. Murdoch: My response is to the Minister of Natural Resources. I would like to commend him for replying to our moose problem so quickly. It was actually the only issue that was never addressed in the Agenda for People and he has made a decision on it which we applaud him for.

There is one more issue that I would like to mention, though, that the minister did not have anything to say about, and that was the fees. Hopefully he will not increase them until he has consulted with somebody.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier could confirm that representatives of his office have been in touch with political and public service representatives in Ottawa and other provinces with respect to the issues of national unity that are being presented by the constitutional debate.

Hon Mr Rae: I can tell the member, from my knowledge, of some discussions which very naturally take place between deputy ministers. The Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, for example, has very naturally in the course of events over the last two months been speaking to the deputy minister in Ottawa, and as well has obviously been in touch regularly, as is normally the case, with deputy ministers in other provinces; I cannot give the member details of exactly which provinces.

I can tell him that the secretary of cabinet has also, in the normal course of events, had discussions with the secretary of cabinet and others in Ottawa. These are normal discussions. There were no particular proposals of any kind discussed, because as far as we are aware the federal government has no particular proposals to put forward. But of course there have been discussions. That is the normal course of events.

Mr Scott: The Premier understands perfectly that I am not interested in what he calls discussions in the normal course of events. I am interested in discussions that have taken place either at the political or at the bureaucratic level with Ottawa or other provinces that have to do with the issues that remain outstanding as a result of the failure of the Meech Lake accord.

The Premier has conceded that there have been discussions at the bureaucratic level. I wonder if he would be good enough to tell us what subjects have been discussed at the bureaucratic level. and would he be good enough to confirm what discussions have taken place between political players?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: I can answer the latter question. I honestly cannot answer the former question because if the member is asking me for a detailed account of those conversations --

Mr Scott: What is Peter telling you he is hearing?

Hon Mr Rae: With great respect to the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, I think he knows that certain discussions that take place in the ordinary course of events I am not going to report every day to the House in terms of the discussions that I have. But I can say to him with respect to my discussions, which I am happy to refer to him, that I have had a meeting with Premier Ghiz, I have had a meeting with Premier Filmon and I have had phone conversations with several of the other premiers, including Premier Bourassa. This was before Mr Bourassa's latest stay in the hospital. I have not had an opportunity to speak to Mr Bourassa except at a personal level since that time.

I can only say to the member that the discussions have been very general. It has been a sense of saying we have to keep the process under way. We want to establish some personal contacts. I would say to the former Attorney General that right now it seems to me the fallout from the Meech Lake accord has been such that there has been a reluctance to get together. I am encouraging people to get together.

My approach is to encourage people. If we can get together and discuss something practical, like the economy, at that point some new personal discussions may be able to take place in terms of how we see the future constitutional discussions happening over the next several months, and indeed several years.

That is the extent of the discussions so far. I would be happy to answer any other questions the member for St George-St David has in that regard.

Mr Scott: The Premier is a good Canadian and he places the issues of national unity very high, as do all of us in this House. He knows that it is five minutes to midnight in this constitutional exercise and he does not have to be reminded that if on his watch there is failure in national unity matters, all the other things he hopes to accomplish will be of no real historic consequence. He knows that.

He has told us that there have been bureaucratic discussions of a general type. He has told us that there have been political discussions of a general type with himself and some other premiers. He has encouraged us from the beginning, from the first day that this House sat, to participate in the development of a bipartisan constitutional policy, an objective that I take very seriously and regard as very important.

What I want to know from the Premier -- having promised that he will have some policy to announce by 20 December; having spoken at length about constitutional issues outside the House, recently at an NDP meeting on Sunday night and in scrums from time to time; having spoken with his political colleagues and having had his senior public servants speak with other senior public servants in a variety of governments -- is, when is he going to tell the Legislative Assembly and the people of Ontario something about his plans so that we can participate in a meaningful way in this exercise?

The point I make to the Premier is that all this is going on without any reference not merely to opposition leaders but to any members of the assembly. We want to share his burden but we cannot share his burden unless he takes us into his confidence. It is what he asked of us and it is what we ask of him. When is he going to do it? A day before he makes his announcement? Two days before? Is he going to offer us a fait accompli? What is the plan the Premier has and why can he not tell the House and the people of Ontario about his response to this critical issue?

Hon Mr Rae: The member for St George-St David said he would like to share my burden. I would be delighted in many ways to do that.

I would remind the member for St George-St David that when he was the Attorney General and we were getting down to the very short strokes with respect to the Meech Lake accord, it was on his instructions that I was told, as Leader of the Opposition, that I could not attend a meeting which dealt with last-minute strategy.

Mr Scott: You went to all the others. We have been to none. We have not been to a single meeting. You were in the Union Station every day.

Hon Mr Rae: No. I just say that by means of contrast to the member for St George-St David. I say that because I want to stress to the former Attorney General that that is not the way in which I intend to do things. I say that by means of contrast to what has taken place in the past. I said yesterday to his leader as clearly as I possibly could that I wanted to have discussions with him and with the leader of the third party this week. It is my earnest desire to do that. I say to him --

Mr Scott: When?

Hon Mr Rae: We will work out the details of the time. Also, in response to the question from the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, when I was asked whether or not it would be possible for us to schedule a debate on the issue, I said I thought that was a good idea and I said I thought that was something the House leaders should discuss in terms of how we do that.

I have said to the House, I have said outside, I have said for some considerable time that the direction which we are going to take by way of process will be presented by the government to the House before we adjourn for Christmas. That is the commitment I have made.

Mr Scott: After consultation?

Hon Mr Rae: After consultation. I intend to fully live up to those commitments and I intend to fully live up to the sense which I believe still exists in this House that there is not only room for consultation, there is a requirement that we consult, not only that we consult with members of all parties but that we consult with the people of the province of Ontario so we do not end up making the mistakes that have been made in the past.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and it relates to the minister's secret list of garbage dumps. Yesterday the minister said the list was not secret. It is, however, unavailable. We have called Metro works, we have called the greater Toronto area office, we have called the Ministry of the Environment and we were unsuccessful in shaking that list loose. We were told that it is held by the Metro works commissioner, Bob Ferguson, and Metro's consultants, M. M. Dillon, and will not be publicly released.

Since the minister's officials reasserted her responsibility for garbage and site selection at a meeting with regional officials yesterday, will she table the list in the House today as we asked her to do yesterday, reducing the uncertainty that a number of communities face in relationship to that list, and will she confirm her policy adviser's statement that her permanent landfill will be up and operating by mid-1994?

Hon Mrs Grier: I wish I could confirm with certainty that statement. That is certainly our hope and our intention. It will require co-operation from the members of this House, who I know share my concerns that a long-term site in fact be up and operating by 1994. I look forward to having that co-operation when I bring forward the legislation for the public authority that will be created to do just that.

Mrs Sullivan: Once again, for the third time, I ask the minister, will she table the list in the House? I am also very interested in her hopes and intentions, as she describes them, that she and her authority can open a landfill site in 1994 in an expedited fashion. The minister's policy adviser has indicated that a site will be chosen in June 1991. We would like to see the list. We have not seen any details on the minister's garbage authority; it does not exist. We have not had any details on proposals on the specific plans to gut the environmental assessment process; it does not exist. She told us that in the House the other day.

The minister will know that to secure an operational site for the ministry, her officials in the ministry now assume a minimum of a one-year construction season, a minimum of six months for documents and consultation preparation, an average of 18 months for government review -- and it certainly has never been under a year -- three to six months between the review and the hearing start and about two years for hearings and a decision. That is a minimum of a five-year wait. Existing garbage dumps will be full beginning in 1991. A new long-term dump is five years away, and the minister is clearly not planning ahead.

1420

My question to the minister is: Will she give the residents of Marmora, Kirkland Lake, Orillia, Plympton, Mississauga, Vaughan, Brampton and Pickering the assurance that any new garbage dumps on her secret list and any proposed expansions of existing dumps will receive a full environmental assessment hearing and a public hearing?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me deal once again with the issue of the list, which -- I hate to disappoint the member -- I have not got and I have not seen. The list is a list that was prepared by Metropolitan Toronto council under the auspices of the program put in place by the previous government. I have asked Metro council and the regional municipalities that comprise the greater Toronto area to keep their options open with respect to long-term landfill sites and I have asked them to provide to the new public authority, when it is established, all the relevant material, studies and information that they have collected so that we build on the work that has been done and not duplicate it. That is our intention.

Mrs Sullivan: I would like to read a report from the Toronto Star of today's date. It says: "In a meeting with regional heads, provincial officials told Metro to hand over its secret list of 15 long-term dump sites to the province." I am asking the minister again, will she table that list in the House?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member seems to be unable to comprehend the kind of integrated waste management strategy that this government is putting in place. Her second question dealt at length with the time frame for finding a long-term site. She knows, I think, that that time frame is very dependent on how seriously we can get to reducing and reusing waste, and that is what this government is going to do.

When it comes to preparing for a long-term site, this government is going to put in place a public authority and that authority will develop a list. That list will use the information that has already been collected by the regional municipalities and that list may be the same that Metropolitan Toronto has. It may be a very different list, it may be a longer list, it may be a shorter list, but it will be part of a very public process that is being undertaken by what I hope will be a joint municipal-provincial partnership and that will be proceeding in accordance with the values and the principles of the Environmental Assessment Act. I hope to have the member for Halton Centre's cooperation and support in that endeavour.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question --

Mr Scott: We have gone through that. We don't want the list. Don't ask another question. That's enough.

The Speaker: I thought I might start keeping a list of noisy, disruptive members. Perhaps all of us at this time could direct our attention to the member for Dufferin-Peel, who is waiting patiently to place a question.

Mr Tilson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Housing.

Mr Scott: Don't ask for the list.

Mr Tilson: No, I won't. I have asked for the list but he has not got it either.

We have listened for several weeks now to the minister's dissertations on Bill 4 and throughout all that, both inside and outside the House, he refuses to acknowledge the impact that Bill 4 is having on the workers of this province normally engaged in essential apartment renovations. I am not talking about the marble foyers that have been referred to so often by the minister, I am talking about essential apartment renovations.

As the minister knows, project after project, many essential to the proper maintenance of aging buildings, is being put off or cancelled. The minister knows that. Would he not agree that it is ultimately the tenants' quality of life which will suffer if buildings are not maintained by owners who, through no fault of their own, simply do not have the resources to undertake even the essential structural work and repairs? Would the minister tell us?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would certainly agree with the member that it is the tenants' quality of life that Bill 4 is attempting to address. I would like to refer the member to an article that was in today's Globe and Mail about a building that has been raised in this House by the Liberal Party and responded to by myself as Minister of Housing.

I guess the approach that the Conservative Party is taking that of people like David Franklin, who owns 109 Jameson, who invested in the building with his partners, who then invested capital in the building, and now has been able to take advantage of a tax loophole so that the capital that he invests he gets to write off the tax system, then gets to pass it through under the rent review system -- and then his response to the Globe and Mail questioner about the likelihood that all the tenants in that building would be economically evicted from the building is: "That's one downside to the deal. I agree the current tenants would be forced out. I thought it was the government's job to look after them." The member is right; it is our job to look after them and that is what we are doing under Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: I acknowledge that the previous government made a terrible mess of the housing crisis in this province. I acknowledge that, but this government is making it worse. I know that they believe that there is more than enough money in basic rental increases to take care of all repairs and maintenance, no matter how major. Let's assume the owners simply cannot afford to maintain their properties. I know the government does not want to assume that, but let's just assume that.

Is the government telling this House that the tenants' quality of life and their rightful enjoyment of comfortable accommodation is somehow going to be assured by more property standards inspectors, by more and more unenforceable work orders and simply more bureaucracy -- that is what they are going to create? Is the government telling us that? Is this really their solution? Do they really believe that tenants can take comfort from that?

Hon Mr Cooke: I go back to the question that the member seemed to refuse to answer in his caucus, and that is, what quality of life do tenants have if they are economically evicted from their buildings? In this particular building, as I said a few weeks ago, rent increases of 80% to 135% were asked for. We cannot in this party sit by and watch that happen.

If the member read on to the article that was in today's paper, after all of this work was going to be done -- purchase the building, put capital into the building, pass the costs through the rent review system, take tax write-offs -- then what was the plan of this investor? In 1995 flip the building, then the tenants go back to rent review and those costs are passed through too. I cannot justify that system. That is why we brought in Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: I will tell the government one thing. This side of the House is not going to create slums like they are creating. Can the minister tell us whether he is considering extending the mandate of rental standards boards to cover all buildings regardless of size. and what impact this will have on the size and cost of his bureaucracy? Can he tell us that today?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think that one of the issues that the member as a critic and the Liberal critic and landlords and tenants in this province are going to have to deal with is, when the matter is before the committee. the consultation document for the long-term solution, we have to address the issue of maintenance and capital in the buildings across this province. We have said that right across, but I look forward to the member's suggestions of what we should do in the long term.

The Liberal critic yesterday came up with some suggestions -- I do not entirely agree with her, but she came up with some positive suggestions. I am looking forward to the member's. He can sit back and criticize and say that tenants should not be protected and we should eliminate rent review. but as long as we are in power the elimination of rent controls is not in the cards. We are going to bring in legislation to properly protect tenants in this province.

1430

LANDFILL SITES

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the minister of garbage. It is inconceivable that she, as minister, does not know the 15 potential dump sites on Metropolitan Toronto's list, because as the minister responsible --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment? I thought you were about to use the proper title, perhaps with responsibility for certain items.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, how right you are. Thank you very much.

To the honourable Minister of the Environment -- let me begin again. just in case she missed my preface. It is just inconceivable that she, as the minister responsible for the environment. does not know the 15 potential dump sites on Metro's list. As minister responsible for waste management, she just has to know what they are. Her problem is that she just will not volunteer the locations of the sites, but we can.

We have been informed that of the 15 sites. eight have had no geological testing done to date. It will therefore be impossible for them to be operational by 1994. That leaves seven possible sites: Kirkland Lake, Marmora. Plympton, Rouge, Whitevale, Newcastle and Orillia township. However, yesterday the Premier ruled out the Rouge. so we now have six possible sites. Is the minister going to deny, in the presence of all these witnesses and the honourable Speaker in this House. that these sites are not on Metro's list?

Hon Mrs Grier: I can neither affirm nor deny that they are on the list. If the member wants to pass me the list I would be more than happy to have a look at it. because I have not yet seen it.

Mr Cousens: So we are now down from seven to six sites. At this point we do not need to listen to the minister, because we have got more information than she does, but we are still going to give her a chance to give that leadership that she is so capable of giving, especially when she was in opposition. This looks like more of a preview of the way in which the minister's new and improved environmental assessment process is going to work -- through attrition. In other words, it is her intention to select a landfill site for Metro's garbage by the process of elimination.

The facts are that Metro Toronto has admitted that it has signed a contract with Kirkland Lake for disposal of its garbage. and the minister has actually encouraged the signing of this deal. The minister should come clean with the people who voted for her party in the September election and who depended upon her no-dump party to protect them from having to accept garbage they do not want. She knows it is going to take at least a year for her new and improved environmental assessment process, 18 months for the court battles and another 18 months to engineer the date.

Will the minister not today admit that Kirkland Lake is the only viable site that could even come close to meeting the 1994 deadline?

Hon Mrs Grier: Each of the five regional municipalities that comprise the greater Toronto area has itself been undertaking a search for a landfill site. Under the previous government, the chairs of those regions came together to form the Solid Waste Interim Steering Committee and that body was seeking a site for the greater Toronto area. It is that body that is going to be the foundation of the new public authority that will be seeking a landfill site, not merely for Metropolitan Toronto but for Metro and Durham and Halton and Peel and York. It is that authority that will be developing a list of sites, that will be establishing criteria by which sites will be selected or not selected and that will be subjecting their choice of sites to the environmental assessment process. I think that is the missing element in the question that the member has been posing. We are not seeking a long-term site merely for Metropolitan Toronto, which has now developed a list; we will be seeking a site that will accommodate not the garbage but the leftovers after reduction and reuse for the greater Toronto area.

Mr Cousens: It is a funny transformation from a prophetess to a goddess to a tooth fairy, because what is going to happen is that the people in Metro Toronto are going to wake up some morning with garbage under their pillows because she has not solved the problem.

I am getting notes. Everybody sort of agrees with me.

It is time the minister read her notes and understood that we have a crisis and she is not just going to do it with the three Rs. She comes back and she gives us the same old message, which we all believe in, but we somehow would like to have her give us a number on how much landfill we are going to save through her big 3Rs program by the end of 1993, three years from now. We are rolling towards that date. How much landfill are we going to save from now until then from her 3Rs program, and live with it?

Hon Mrs Grier: I guess going from goddess to tooth fairy is a bit of a transition, but had I waited for the process that had been put in place by the previous government, I would have been toothless by the time we got to a landfill site.

The previous government had established a target of diversion of 25% of waste by its recycling program. It is certainly my intention to divert more than that. I agree with the member that we have a crisis and that time is running out and that therefore it is incumbent upon all of us to do whatever we can to divert far more than 25%. I know that in my conversations with the member he has shared my concern that the municipality of York, from whence he comes, is merely diverting 5% of its garbage.

There has to be a concerted effort to divert far more than 25% and then we can in fact have a much longer period before we need to have a landfill site. I acknowledge that we will need an additional landfill site and we are embarked upon a process that will take us to that site, but the bottom line for us is what will protect the environment. What protects the environment is a good search process and serious reduction and reuse.

Mrs Sullivan: My question is again to the Minister of the Environment. It was clear also from today's Toronto Star that according to Metro officials, as the critic for the third party has indicated, there is one option left for Metro's garbage and that is Kirkland Lake as the proposed dump.

The Timiskaming Anti-Garbage Coalition conducted a poll recently of 1,100 citizens in the area, reporting 70% opposition by decided respondents to bringing Toronto's garbage to the Adams Mine site. The members of that group see a conflict in that the Minister of the Environment is also the minister for the greater Toronto area, which is the site of the garbage crisis.

Dr Epps, who is spokesperson for the Timiskaming coalition, has raised a most interesting issue. I would like to quote. Can the minister provide a definition of a willing host? "This should not be difficult as she has already urged Metro to sign an agreement based on this concept. If the willing host is defined as the mayor and councillors, then I suppose they should prepare to shovel garbage. If, however, the definition requires the people of the region to be willing, then I would challenge the Minister of the Environment to obtain proof of our willingness."

An agreement exists between Metro Toronto and Kirkland Lake. The question that the Minister of the Environment has to answer -- and I want her to answer it today -- is, what is a willing host?

Hon Mrs Grier: Somehow there seems to be a gap in memory somewhere. Let me point out to the member that the list she has referred to, and the list on which Kirkland Lake, Marmora and all of the others exist, was developed under a process put in place by her government, not by this side of the House. The definition of "willing host" that was accepted and that placed Kirkland Lake on this list was a definition defined by the Liberals when they were the government.

Let me make it very clear to the member that the public authority that will be establishing a long-term site for the waste of the greater Toronto area is not yet in place, has not yet developed criteria as to the appropriateness of sites and has not yet developed a list of sites. No decision has been made as to the ultimate site for Metro's waste.

1440

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The GTA has prepared its own list of 86 sites, not with the help of this party when it was government but of its own accord.

The Speaker: That is certainly a point of information.

Mrs Sullivan: I was not asking for a reiteration of rhetoric; I was asking the minister for a specific response: How does she define "willing host"? She has refused to answer the question about tabling the list. We want to know how she defines "willing host" in her ministry, because she has changed all the other rules.

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not have a definition of "willing host." I consider the definition of "willing host" the definition of "criteria by which a list of potential sites can be developed," to be one of the first tasks to be undertaken by the public authority as soon as this is put in place.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Premier. Earlier this week he announced his new policy, I guess, with regard to appointments to agencies, boards and commissions. In announcing this policy, as I understand it, he plans to still proceed with the old way of making the patronage appointments to these various agencies, boards and commissions. The only thing I can see that he has done differently is that he plans to refer the appointments to a committee. The committee will receive these appointments after he has made his selection through the normal patronage process in the Premier's office, after you have --

Mr Sorbara: Have you got a good headline?

Mr Harris: Well, this is the way that party did it. If the Liberals are proud of that process, then keep interjecting.

Mr Elston: Don't let us take you off the point.

Mr Harris: They are distracting me and I understand it. Maybe they are not too proud of this process and I do not blame them.

After he has made the order-in-council appointment, he plans to refer it to a committee which will have no power to reverse the appointment, no power to reject the appointment, no power to make any recommendation as to a superior appointment. In light of that, can the Premier tell me what has changed in the way he plans to proceed with patronage appointments?

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I almost hate to break up the lovers' quarrel that we saw over there. I was enjoying it.

Mr Scott: Tell us your plan. Your plan is Mulroney's plan.

Mr Eves: How soon they forget; 1985 was a good year.

Hon Mr Rae: I have obviously touched a nerve.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: All right, they do not like each other. Okay, I accept that.

In answer to the question, the member says, "What is different?" What is different are three elements, as I understand it.

The first thing that is different is that the distribution of information to the public is going to be far wider and far more sweeping than has ever been the case before. The decision to make a list available in every public library across the province in a form that is readable and accessible and available, that there is a standard application form that any citizen can say that he feels he is eligible, has never been done before and I think it is an innovation.

The decision on our part to establish a committee that will have the responsibility of reviewing appointments and referring to them, judging them, questioning them in a very public forum again is something that has not happened before in this Legislative Assembly. It was recommended back in 1986 by a former committee of this House. It was not put into place by the party which is now in the official opposition, the Liberal Party. It was rejected by them and it is something which has not been put in place before.

The third thing which has been put in place is with respect to officers or appointments which are genuinely appointments of the Legislative Assembly as a whole. With respect to the future, there we are clearly establishing that the final recommendations of the committee, which will be a three-party committee in which all parties will be represented equally -- equal representation from each party -- will be empowered to choose, for example, the new Information and Privacy Commissioner and that decision will be final. It will not be reviewed by me because I regard that as a position that is genuinely independent.

These are three things that have not been done before. It may not be perfect, but it was not done by the Tory party when it was in power for 42 years and it was not done by the Liberal Party when it was in power for five years. I suggest we give it a chance and make it work.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am sure that the Premier inadvertently misled the House in not remembering that the Clerk of this assembly was appointed on recommendation of a standing committee of this House ably led by the member for Oshawa.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North, in raising his point of privilege, may wish to reconsider his phrasing.

Mr Conway: I said -- and I do not think it gives any offence; I cannot imagine it would give any offence -- having listened to the Premier, that he, in my view, inadvertently misled the House by not remembering in this place that the very distinguished Clerk of this assembly was selected by a former standing committee of this Legislature ably led by the former NDP member for Oshawa. That is all.

Mr Harris: The Premier and his Liberal counterparts and some other government back 142 years can argue about what they did and what they did not do. What I am interested in is what the Premier and I have talked about for the last couple of years, what he and I talked about in the campaign, about truly demystifying, if he likes, and truly opening up and removing patronage from the appointments process. Now he is very proud of what he has proposed. I think the public will judge that not to be the case.

However, given that the Premier is proud of it, can he tell me why one of the most important commissions that his government has talked about in response to numerous questions from members from all sides of the House, the Fair Tax Commission, surely could be classified as an agency, board or commission?

Yesterday, in response to one of his own members, the member for Scarborough Centre, the Treasurer said: "I do not plan to play by the Premier's rules. I plan to proceed through some technicality because I am a minister of the crown. This is my own commission. It is not the Premier's commission. This is not the House's commission. I do not plan to follow those rules; I plan to proceed on my own, making my own decisions." Can the Premier explain to me, if he is so proud of the rules, why he allows the Treasurer to proceed that way with the Fair Tax Commission?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to be very careful in my response because I just want to say that I do not think the member's characterization of the exchange that took place yesterday is entirely fair or accurate. I can realize why the member is asking the question that he is.

I can say to the member that in my view, and I have discussed it with the Treasurer, I have absolutely no problem, and neither does the Treasurer, with the members of the Fair Tax Commission being referred to the committee. All he was saying, in response to the question, is that there are 5,000 positions in agency, boards and commissions. The practical question for the committee is going to be, how many members? How many of those nominations are going to be considered by the committee? To be fair to the Treasurer, I think that is in a sense what he was referring to in his answer.

1450

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I can say to him -- whenever I answer one of the questions of the leader of the third party he has difficulty taking yes for an answer, and I am giving him yes for an answer. He is asking me whether I think it is appropriate that the Fair Tax Commission should go to the committee. I am giving him a yes for an answer and I have no problem with that. If he is having difficulty accepting my answer, well, I am sorry, but I am giving him the best answer I can.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr B. Ward: I think the energy level seems to be up in this House and I am looking forward to stimulating debate over the next nine hours that we sit in this House.

My question is to the Minister of Education. I am sure the minister is aware of the fact that the city of Brantford has been hammered by the economic recession that this country is facing, a recession caused by the federal Conservative Party's agenda to destroy this country. We all know that in an economic recession young people are hit particularly hard through lack of skills development, job opportunities or tenure on the job. My question is, what will the ministry do, what is this government doing to help young people acquire job skills and work experience in those skills?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In April 1990 the Ministry of Education took over the Futures program from the Ministry of Skills Development and that program has been very successful. In fact, the uptake by young people is a reflection of exactly the needs that the member has mentioned young people are experiencing. That program is in danger of running out of funds. Our ministry is taking action and hopes to make an announcement soon about increasing the funding for the Futures program, which is offered through the youth employment centres and the community colleges.

Mr B. Ward: I am pleased to see that the commitment is there to renew the Futures funding, because it was highly successful in the city of Brantford. Could the minister tell this House and the people of Brantford this time how much the funding would be?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The overall request is for $6.85 million, of which $1.85 million is to adjust the minimum wage. It is anticipated that we will be able to make an announcement that those needs will be fulfilled.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Mancini: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. The minister announced on 22 November that he would not proceed with the legislation introduced by the previous government to allow 53-foot trailers on highways here in Ontario. He made the decision in response to a public perception and was quoted in the media as saying: ''I am not saying that the public perception is correct. I am simply saying that there is a perception."

On 26 November in this House the minister stated that it was not his intention to reintroduce the 53-foot trailers in this province despite fears of layoffs in the industry. Now we see that late last night, under the cover of darkness, the minister announced through a press release that he would be continuing the previous government's practice and issuing another 400 special permits for these trailers to operate. Why does the minister continue to avoid the Legislature for these important announcements, and can he explain his most recent actions?

Hon Mr Philip: What the member fails to indicate is that the bill his government introduced did two things: It lengthened trucks from 23 metres to 25 metres and it also provided for an open system of lengthening trailers from 48 feet to 53 feet. I told the Ontario Trucking Association that I was not prepared to move ahead with that legislation. My statement still holds. I have not moved ahead with that legislation. I do not intend to move ahead with that legislation.

What the former government also did, without consulting the Legislature and without bringing any legislation into this House, was to introduce an administrative procedure that would allow for permits for 53-foot trailers up to 2,000. So inept was the procedure they introduced that they provided for no system of monitoring who got those permits in any way whatsoever. Suddenly, on 15 November --

Mr Scott: Ed, go home and watch this on television tonight, please. This will on at about 10:15. Watch it, I pray. Don't miss this explanation.

Hon Mr Philip: I can see I hit a nerve with them. They do not like to hear about the ineptness of their system that I have had to try to correct.

Mr Mancini: I just want to inform the House that it was the NDP socialist government that approved the 650 applications to US firms.

Mr Bradley: How many?

Mr Mancini: It was 650.

The truckers of Ontario have started to refer to the minister as Ed Flip. I would say that judging from the minister's performance to date, he should be called Ed Flop.

On 26 November the minister refused to acknowledge impartial outside studies which clearly showed the safety-enhancing and the environmental and economic benefits of 53-foot trailers. He refused to acknowledge on that date that jobs would be lost because of his short-sighted decision and he failed to consult with the industry or anyone else that we know of.

Can the minister guarantee the House that the 400 new permits he is giving out will go to Ontario companies only? How does he expect Ontario truckers to compete on a level playing field when some are able to get these permits and others are not? How does he expect fair competition?

Hon Mr Philip: What the member wants is an open door, then, for longer trucks in this province and I say to him that is not what the public wants and that is not what this government is allowing.

On 15 November, under the former government's system, there were 625 --

Mr Scott: Ed, your job doesn't depend on this answer. Get that straight first. No one gets fired over one answer.

Mrs Caplan: Did you have a lottery?

Hon Mr Philip: Am I going to be allowed to answer?

The Speaker: I am getting the feeling that folks are not really interested in a response.

Mrs Caplan: We are fascinated.

The Speaker: Then perhaps the fascination will be followed with silence. If members would like a response, then I would suggest we allow the minister to respond.

Hon Mr Philip: They obviously do not want an answer.

1500

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Eves: I have a question of the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware of the former government's capital commitments to many hospitals throughout this province. Is she in a position to tell us today whether she is prepared to deliver through on those commitments?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member might want to put a date on when the commitments were made. As the member is aware, there were commitments made in the 1986-87 period for capital construction in our Ontario hospitals which were then put under a hold in the period about a year ago, pending a review of the capital program in our hospitals.

All those projects are now under review. Some have been approved and are proceeding. Others have been combined with a health review of areas, for example, in North Bay and Windsor. Others still are going through a review where two hospitals may be deciding to rationalize services, such as in Sault Ste Marie. So there is a combination of systems of review that are going on. Some projects have gone ahead and others are still undergoing study at the local level, and review within the ministry and continuing discussions between the ministry and the hospitals involved.

Mr Eves: Review, study and consultation.

Mr Mahoney: And pay for it yourself.

Mr Eves: And pay for it yourself, in the case of the member down here.

The reason I asked the minister the question was that according to the Minister of Housing, her cabinet colleague, in an interview with the Windsor Star on 7 November of this year, he said, "Medical institutions that were promised money by the former government may have lost it when the Liberals lost the election."

There are some 73 public hospitals in the province of Ontario on the list supplied by her ministry that are awaiting funding for capital projects. Many of those hospitals, like the Willett Hospital in Paris, Ontario, St Joseph's in Guelph, Orillia Soldiers' Memorial, the Dufferin Area Hospital in Haliburton and many others, like all of these 73, have had local people who have raised money, volunteers who have gone out and raised money on behalf of their hospital expecting that these commitments to these 73 hospitals would be fulfilled.

Can the minister tell us today which of those 73 commitments will be fulfilled and which will not, especially in light of the fact that the Minister of Housing seems to know that a great deal of them will not be fulfilled at all because the Liberals lost the election?

Hon. Mr Cooke: I didn't say that, Ernie, and you know it.

Mr Eves: No, that is a quote.

Hon Mr Cooke: No, it is not a quote.

Mr Eves: I will send it over to you.

Hon Mr Cooke: I read it.

Mr Eves: It is very large.

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The Minister of Housing says behind me that it was a newspaper headline and I am sure the member would not like to suggest that he actually made that statement if it is simply a headline. Beyond that, we are proceeding in a methodical way to consult with the hospitals. It is a very important question the member raises. The plans that were undertaken by hospitals in the period of the mid and late 1980s were very large, major capital plans, many of them related to chronic care institutions.

Since that time, as the member knows, the long-term care task force was undertaken by the previous government. It will be continued by our government and we are hoping to develop facilities which are much more suitable for the kind of care that people need and the kind of care that is suitable, and that we know is suitable, in the 1990s rather than the kind of traditional hospitalization and institutionalization patterns which have been followed for 20 years previous to now.

[Later]

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to rise to correct the record. The Minister of Housing was very disturbed at what I attributed to him a few moments ago in this House as a quote, so I want to read into the record exactly what the statement is in the Windsor Star so there is absolutely no doubt.

Hon Mr Laughren: It is not a point of order.

Hon Mr Philip: That is not a point of order.

Mr Eves: I am clarifying for the record. Do members want me to clarify the record or not? The quote that the honourable Minister of Housing made is: "If the previous government hasn't allocated the money, there is a problem. It's going to be impossible to deliver on every promise the previous government made." That was the quote. I am sorry, the one I read into the record was actually a statement in the Windsor Star.

RECREATION FOR DISABLED

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the honourable Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Would the minister please advise the House about specific initiatives that have been developed that will enable the disabled community to be involved in recreational activities.

Hon Mr North: I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the House about this very important issue. I would like to make the member aware that our ministry is very aware of the plight of disabled people and of their abilities. I would like to inform the House that just recently I chaired the interprovincial meeting of sports ministers in Victoria and that under my chairmanship we reached a consensus to include disabled sports on an equal footing with able-bodied sports in 1993 and 1995 in the disabled games. I thank the member and I appreciate the question.

Mr Malkowski: I am very happy to hear that the minister is working with other ministries on a national level and that we are aware of national activities, but what is happening here in our own backyard?

Hon Mr North: I am sure the member is aware that we support the Ontario Games for the Physically Disabled. I was pleased to show our continued support just recently in Hamilton where we announced that.

With respect to the Ontario games, I have instructed my staff to review the operations of those games and to provide me with recommendations on how we can integrate disabled activities.

The member will be pleased to know that I have asked my staff to meet with staff of the Ministry of Culture and Communications to discuss how we can involve disabled artists in the Ontario games for the physically disabled so that we can create a multisport celebration out of the event.

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week the minister was unable to provide us with a specific timetable for implementing 10,000 new child care spaces and 10,000 new subsidies that had been committed in the Agenda for People, so today I would like to raise another question of particular importance to child care advocates, and that is the adequacy of salaries for workers in the child care field.

In the speech from the throne, which I think we can assume perhaps carries a higher degree of commitment than the Agenda for People seems to carry, there was an indication that the government was promising early progress in redressing the unequal pay in areas such as child care. I wonder if the minister could tell us, in this situation, what is meant by "early progress." Could she confirm for us which is the priority for her government, access to additional child care spaces or dealing with inequitable salaries in the child care field?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, it is difficult to establish which of those two things is a priority. Both of them are a priority of this government. We have in fact begun discussions. We are actually at the end of that discussion and will be making an announcement in this House when we have finalized our plans.

1510

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Sutherland from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr9, An Act to revive the Restoule Snowmobile Club;

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Windsor;

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting Goderich-Exeter Railway Company Limited;

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Vanier;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr45, An Act to revive Lordina Limited;

Bill Pr48, An Act to revive La Capanna Homes (NonProfit) Inc.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

The Speaker: It is understood that we have completed debate on this item.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 9, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

M. Laughren propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 9, Loi autorisant des emprunts garantis par le Trésor.

Hon Mr Laughren: Most members will understand that this loan act provides authority for the government to borrow up to $5 billion. It is an amount that I will explain to members so they do not blanch at the thought of being responsible for borrowing that amount of money.

Members will know that the deficit for 1990-91 stands at $2.5 billion. That accounts for half of the borrowing in this loan act. The other half of the borrowing is for 1991-92, and I should remind members as well that there is some retirement of existing debt that needs to be refinanced that makes up the total in 1991-92.

On top of the $2.5 billion for 1990-91 there is almost $700 million of debt that is maturing in this year. So if you add the $2.5-billion debt for 1990-91 to the debt that is maturing of almost $700 million, that comes to about $3.2 billion, and the balance of the $5 billion is for 1991-92.

I think that members should understand, and I think most of them will, that we need to do some borrowing, not just for the balance of 1990-91 but also for the first six months of 1991. It is traditional as well to borrow more than the precise number of dollars you need in order to allow for an orderly way in which to go to the market to raise additional funds so that if it is not appropriate -- if, for example, there is upheaval in the Middle East -- we would not have to go to the market at precisely the wrong time in order to get the best possible deal for the Ontario taxpayers when it comes to borrowing.

There is also for 1991-92, besides the anticipated debt for 1991-92, an arrangement for contingency as well. This particular Ontario Loan Act, 1990, will not allow us to borrow beyond the end of September 1991, so that following the budget in 1991, a budget which I hope will be brought down in April, it would be my plan to almost attach to that budget another loan act which would finance the expressed intentions of expenditures contained in that budget.

That is quite an ordinary way, a traditional way in which loan acts are brought in. Last year there was no loan act brought in with the budget because of course the Treasurer of the day did not anticipate a deficit and therefore any need to bring in a loan act at that time. But it is our intention to bring in a loan act following the budget in the spring of 1991. With that explanation I look forward to the debate which will inevitably follow.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Questions and comments?

Mr Bradley: In addressing this particular bill, the Treasurer has brought to the attention of the House the fact that the government will be spending or wishes to spend at least some $5 billion, or needs the funding to make those expenditures. and that it transcends the fiscal years that we are talking about and that the needs are well beyond.

The amount sounds like a good deal of money and certainly is a good deal of money. When you look at the operation of the province of Ontario. you recognize that our budget is well over $40 billion at the present time. Part of that expenditure growth is a result of the demands on the system, the demands for services in the province of Ontario, and part of it is that the government has mentioned on a number of occasions, and others have mentioned, the fact that the anticipated federal transfers to the provinces are diminishing each year. Where the provincial government used to be able to count on a good percentage of funding from the federal government, it is now instituting caps on that funding.

That leaves the provincial government with one of three choices. The first is to increase taxes. The Treasurer is obviously going to be reluctant to increase taxes at a time when we are in a recessionary period and so justifiably would reject that particular option at least until his budget in April of next year. The second is to cut programs and once again in a recessionary period many people would not expect that the programs that would directly affect the budgetary expenditures of the province should in fact be cut back in any significant way. The third is that you must borrow and the choice that has been made is the choice to borrow in the anticipation that perhaps there will be some additional funding forthcoming.

I think I am in my speech and I was not aware that I am making comments on this. I am into my --

The Acting Speaker: We are on questions and comments.

Mr Bradley: Is that what that was? I have a long speech coming after. I was actually beginning my speech rather than questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker: Your time is up.

Mr Bradley: I wanted to ignore that particular thing because that is what got us into trouble in the first place with the last bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments? Debate?

Mr Bradley: I will simply continue my remarks on this particular bill because it is one which is important to the province and it does allow some latitude for members of the Legislature. This is one place where the Chair has a mighty difficult time reining in the various members of the Legislature because so much can be talked about when one talks about the borrowing of some $5 billion.

Allow me the opportunity then to get into a little bit of history which members of the Legislature would be interested in, the history of the need for borrowing in the province of Ontario. We would be aware that from the period of 1971, I believe it was, to 1988, the province of Ontario in fact ran deficits. This was somewhat of a departure from the usual practice: in the old days when we happened to have some budgetary surpluses -- none of them were exceedingly large, but nevertheless they were budgetary surpluses -- to a time when the former Treasurer was able in 1989 to bring in the first budgetary surplus since in the 1940s in the province of Ontario, something of which he was particularly proud. I think there was recognition on all sides that we were in good economic times.

1520

It is easier, everyone would concede that, to run a budgetary surplus. Indeed it is probably good fiscal management when there is a booming economy to run a budgetary surplus, a slight surplus; you do not want an excessive surplus. He was also able in fact for the first time in over 20 years to pay down the provincial debt. That is important to be able to do that.

This Treasurer does not have that option at this time because he faces a recessionary period in this country. We could go into the many reasons for the recession. I would attribute the major reason, as far as the domestic scene is concerned, to the high interest rate policy of the federal government, which is affecting all of the provinces and in particular the province of Ontario.

High interest rates, it is alleged by Sinclair Stevens, a former federal cabinet minister in the Mulroney government, might well be related. It is alleged by him that perhaps this was the unwritten part of the free trade agreement between the United States government and the Canadian government; that in fact they wanted to keep the dollar high, and to keep the Canadian dollar high it is necessary to have some high interest rates.

I indicated the other day in the House that one of the ramifications -- first of all, those of us who represent automotive centres and those who represent other industrial centres in the province of Ontario which are very much needing exports to be successful, or want to produce for the domestic market for that matter, are reliant upon a competitive Canadian dollar so that imports do not become more attractive and that our exports are in fact attractive in the United States particularly and elsewhere in the world, but particularly when dealing with the United States.

I recall, for the members of the House who might not have been here on that day, talking to, I think it was, Great Lakes Pulp and Paper Co and asking one of the individuals there what it cost for one point on the dollar; in other words, if the dollar went from 82 cents to 83 cents US, what was the result. That individual revealed to me that it was some $17 million in costs to that company. There are those of us who recognize that, in addition to a very skilled and dedicated workforce in the plants of the province of Ontario, particularly in the city of St. Catharines with which I am familiar, that is one major factor in ensuring that we are competitive.

Another factor -- and those who work in that milieu would certainly tell you; they are aware of it after the number of years -- is that we have a competitive dollar, a dollar which is not increasing in relation to the US dollar. It is very attractive for those who choose to shop in the United States or to travel in the United States to see that dollar rise, but to those of us who represent communities which are reliant upon a competitive dollar, that is, a dollar which I would prefer to see below 80 cents as opposed to over 80 cents and we are seeing it at 85 cents, 86 cents and 87 cents, we are reliant upon that to make our industry competitive because others have other competitive factors that they use against us.

So we have a high interest rate policy which is causing difficulty for the people of this province and this country and that leaves a Treasurer in any one particular province with not too many options. The Treasurer in this province does not control the interest rates, regardless of who the Treasurer happens to be. That is controlled by the Bank of Canada and there is influence, of course, to be extended by the federal Minister of Finance.

We see the effect of those interest rates. That even affects the Ontario borrowing. When the Treasurer has to do his borrowing, he has to borrow in fact more money than he would like because he has to pay a higher interest rate. There is debt to be paid off.

One of the disadvantages of having been on the government side not long ago is that one can have some degree of sympathy with those who sit in that position, or at least understanding if not sympathy for those who sit in that position, such as the Treasurer and Deputy Premier of this province.

We saw a number of deficits. In fact, when this government came into power -- this government being the government that is no longer in power and relinquished that on 1 October -- the Liberal government, on 26 June 1985, in fact inherited in good economic times a $2.6-billion deficit.

Now, one has to admire, because in politics one does admire the ability of some people to get their message across, how this government has -- not the Treasurer himself, I might add. I give him some considerable credit. I watched his press conference and he did not dwell on the fact that he inherited any deficit or did not talk about any deception -- but this government as a whole has been able to say somehow that it inherited an empty pot or something of that nature. Some people who should know better do not know better about these things and accept this holus-bolus, forgetting again that the Liberal government inherited a $2.6-billion deficit, but had run a surplus the year before.

But the Treasurer is faced with what every Treasurer is faced with across this country. I think people have to understand that if they are going to be critical of him, he has to -- and he is going to have to do it perhaps again -- revise his predictions on what his net cash requirements will be because he is going to see some substantial increases in such things as social assistance costs. That is inevitable when there is a declining economy. In addition to that, he is going to see a decline in revenues. He has already witnessed that. We have seen that happening. Businesses across this country are revising their figures. Every provincial Treasurer who made a prediction in a spring budget is now changing that prediction. The federal Minister of Finance has done the same.

So I would say that the Treasurer certainly is in need of these funds. I just hope that I can find some excellent ways in which he can use those funds to the advantage of the people of this province.

I want to indicate as well -- I do not lecture the Treasurer; I simply share with him some experience as a member of the Management Board of Cabinet and the allocation process that he is becoming very familiar with and probably is quite immersed in at the present time, between the policy and priorities board of cabinet and the Management Board and I assume he sits on both or has some considerable control over both -- that he would recognize that every ministry comes in with a wish list.

So not only are there the natural components of a deficit plus what he decided he was going to throw in -- the previous Treasurer said everything but the kitchen sink. I do not know about whether the kitchen sink was included or not, but he included a lot of items in there. But what he is faced with as a Treasurer and as a member of Management Board of Cabinet is the fact that each of the ministries is coming in with a wish list. Were I a member of the civil service of the province of Ontario, seeing a new government coming into office, particularly a government which one would anticipate was going to be a spending government, as a senior civil servant, I certainly would be putting forward a number of desirable projects that I wish to see funded.

So it is the role and responsibility of the Treasurer of the province, as the chief guardian of the vault in this province -- and the Chair of Management Board of Cabinet who sits in the House today, undertaking activities which are extremely important to everyone and which all of us will be participating in; I know she is listening very carefully to my suggestions on this regard -- but the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet and the Treasurer both will have to be unpopular people with their colleagues because all of these colleagues are going to be desirous of increased funds.

In fact, the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet must be particularly diligent in dealing with the Minister of Government Services, who will want all kinds of money to undertake the activities that the Ministry of Government Services needs. Each of the ministries comes forward and puts forward a proposal for expenditures. One has to be mighty tough to sit on Management Board of Cabinet and ensure that one establishes priorities and that all of the extras that are thrown in are not accepted so that the budget gets way out of hand.

Now the Treasurer has indicated -- I am sure at the prodding of the official opposition and the suggestion of the official opposition -- that he embark upon some significant capital expenditures. When he was in opposition, he was in favour of that, in fairness, as well.

In a recessionary period, it is wise for a government to make capital expenditures to accelerate projects which might have come along three or four years down the line and to make an investment in the province, because we see a falling off of investments, a falling off of expenditures by those in the private sector. So it seems to me it is good management of the economy to have that money invested by the public sector at that time.

1530

Second, it also allows for the government to be involved in putting in place an infrastructure which can then provide a basis for further economic development when the boom does come. There is all kinds of pressure then, when the boom comes, in terms of prices and availability of those to carry out those responsibilities.

So it is understandable. The Treasurer will not hear criticism from me for running a deficit during a period when we have a recession, because that is inevitable and he has to assist the people. The old way somebody suggested back in the 1930s of somehow cutting back drastically on public expenditures in a time of a recession is not wise in terms of ensuring that that recession is over in as short a time as possible.

Some of the predictions I have seen -- I hope they are wrong -- have been that the recession is going to be substantially deeper, substantially more extensive than many had suggested in the first place. That may or may not be the case. Even though those of us who sit in opposition of course like to see the government in a vulnerable light, for the sake of the province and the people of this province, we in fact do not want to see that happen. We would like to be able to criticize the government for other things in good times, to offer constructive suggestions rather than simply being critical for running a deficit.

The care, then, with which the Chair of the Management Board and the Treasurer approach the expenditure of government is going to be extremely important. I know they will not fund any frivolous programs. They will not fund those which are simply the hobby-horses of some ministers or some within government. They will want to look carefully and make wise investments in all of the appropriate things.

For instance, the Treasurer will know that were the Minister of Transportation and the members of cabinet and Management Board to approve the contract for the Port Weller Dry Docks to build the Pelee Island ferry, they would be helping a particular establishment which has gone from at one time more than 800 employees down to some 30 employees now. That kind of expenditure would be helpful to Hamilton, because no doubt Hamilton and Welland and other places that produce steel and some of the products that go into that ship would be helped by this. So I know I would receive the full support of those who are from the Hamilton district and all of the Niagara district, and of course those who used to live in St Catharines and near the Welland Canal would be very supportive of this as well.

If the minister were borrowing for that purpose, I would say he is borrowing for the right purpose. If they were borrowing to facilitate the movement of ministries to various parts of the province in the decentralization program, I would say that is a good expenditure. I would never criticize the Minister of Government Services or the Chair of Management Board for doing that, because that is a logical and good expenditure for the money that is being drawn.

Some would express concern with the fact that the government is asking for $5 billion. I guess if one wants to be political about it, one can say that is not necessary, that somehow if one did not have that much money one is not going to spend it. I think reality dictates that the government is going to need that money until the revenues come in.

They also have to wait for the federal government. One of the things one usually finds out is that the federal government has more money coming in to one than one anticipates. Let's separate that from the transfer situation, the other programs where they play percentages. Rather, these are the revenues that come in from the federal government. Those often come in above what you anticipate. But also you see cutbacks in federal areas; offloading is the word I am looking for, of the federal government on to the provinces. We had announced, for instance, a green plan by the federal government. What we will find out is that the implementation of that green plan will be done at the cost of provincial governments and municipal governments across this country.

I used to be mildly amused, although annoyed, when I would see federal ministers signing international agreements, in the United States particularly, on how they were going to save the two countries in the field of the environment, knowing the bill would be coming through the mail to the province of Ontario to implement it, with the municipalities shaking in their boots knowing they were going to pick up a substantial portion of that cost, while almost the entire credit would go to the senior level of government, that being the federal government.

The Treasurer can anticipate that there will be some costs as the green plan is implemented and that his government will have to assume some leadership in that area. Those who have served on municipal council -- as I look around the room, there are a number of people who have served on municipal council -- will know what it is like to have to undertake expensive projects. Municipalities have been in the forefront of dealing with environmental issues. They have had to put their money into major sewage treatment plants and water treatment plants and other activities designed to enhance the environment within this province.

When we look at the costs, when we look at the amount of money, $5 billion, it is certainly considerable. I am sympathetic to the provincial government in that it is going to have to pay much higher interest rates than it should for the money it is borrowing because of the high interest rate policy of the federal government. But I would say that the Treasurer should be aware, as should the Chair of Management Board, that it will be the role and responsibility of the official opposition and the third party and indeed members of the government itself to ensure that the money which is borrowed is spent in an appropriate fashion, in a careful fashion and in one which is going to produce the best possible results for the people of Ontario.

I wish the Treasurer the very best in this. He can anticipate that when he spends the money in a fashion we deem to be inappropriate or less than careful the opposition is going to call that to his attention. That is something he is no doubt looking forward to. He can also anticipate that we in the official opposition will be making suggestions on specifically where that money can be spent. So when a new CAT scanner is needed in the Niagara region we can certainly say that is a good place to spend it. If money is needed for the St Catharines General Hospital or the Hotel Dieu or the Shaver Hospital -- I do not want to sound parochial; I am just using these as examples of places where careful and good expenditures can be made -- he will know that we are supportive. But overall, we will look for those careful expenditures, for those pinpointed expenditures, where they can be most effective in bringing us out of this recession.

Mr Stockwell: I suppose this is the first of many borrowing bills we will see coming forward from the Treasurer and the NDP government in the next five years. This is probably the first of many debates that will clearly define the philosophical differences between the Conservative Party of Ontario and probably those of the Liberal and New Democratic parties.

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope so.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer hopes so. He does not need to hope. It is very clear.

I suppose it is going to be the first of many billions that will be piled upon the future debt of everybody living in this province, and I think it is going to be interesting to see exactly how this will wash through the system. I think the most interesting thing will be exactly how much debt this province will have two years from today, three years from today, exactly how closely the Treasurer will live within the guidelines he set down when he outlined his economic statement. A few of the phrases that caught my attention were "not significantly increasing the debt," "you cannot spend your way out of a recession," and so on. Those are the kinds of things I think Ontario needs today.

Clearly, over the past five years at least, there were philosophical differences with respect to spending. Yes, to a degree the Liberals did spend considerably more than I found to be acceptable. They did do some good things with that money. A tremendous amount of money was wasted because it was government. The fact is that government is basically inefficient and costly, and when you spend a buck in government it does not go nearly as far as the buck that was spent in the private sector. Whether you like it or not, I think it is a fact we all accept. Certain private sector operations the government would look down on; and I can understand that as well.

1540

The $5 billion we are talking about today we will outline again. When we had our motion on the paper for the debate two weeks ago with respect to a fiscal policy to look forward to, we understood the philosophical differences at that time.

I guess the basic, fundamental flaw I see in the Liberal and NDP arguments is that we can somehow spend our way out of a recession, expend taxpayers' money to limit a recession, limit its length, its impact and how deep it will run. In my personal opinion, that is seriously flawed logic. At best, the government of the day, no matter how much money it spends, will be working on the margin of the economy in the province.

The suggestion has been made a couple of times across the floor that this is a made-in-Canada recession, which is laughable. I can just see the people in Greece complaining about Brian Mulroney and his made-in-Canada recession. It is just not a fact of life. This is a worldwide recession, a recession that all industrialized nations are in at this time. In fact, they have higher interest rates in most countries, and this recession is being felt, its fullest effect, on all people not just the people of Ontario.

To think through some kind of misguided logic that with some $700-million plan they are going to spend their way out of a recession is just not sensible. It is not sensible at all. It is not going to make a blip in the economic forecast, it is not going to make a blip in the unemployment rates and so on in this province.

The sooner we accept that, the better off we will be. The suggestion is made by the critic from the Liberal Party that a lot of spending will jump-start us out of this recession. Again, I think that is a philosophical difference we have with the Liberals and the NDP. They are not going to jump-start themselves out of a recession. If they feel that through some kind of slush fund, contingency fund, we can spend more money jump-starting the economy, they are working in the margins. The fact of life is that governments, particularly provincial governments, are working in the margins when it comes to jump-starting the economy, and they are not going to do it.

If they want to pretend they can do it, that is one thing. If they want to have numbers they can throw out to the people of the province and say, "Gee, we did this, gee, we did that, and so on and so forth," it might be palatable. They may swallow it. They swallowed the Agenda for People, so they may swallow anything. They may buy that theory, but the reality of the situation is that with hundreds of billions of dollars in production within the province, $700 million is literally a drop in the ocean; probably $5 billion is a drop in the ocean. I do not think there is enough money they could tax them for, even in their wildest dreams, that would make the blip people would need to take hold of this economic recession.

I suppose, too, the philosophical differences also enter into the debate with respect to private sector and government. When it comes to a recession, the government really does not feel the recession; everyone comes to work who works for the government, everyone gets paid, everyone receives his cheque and all those things continue to happen. It is a recession; the word is there, but it never really hits home for anyone who works for the government because nobody loses his job. The old adage is very accurate in this one: "A recession is when your neighbour loses his job, and a depression is when you lose your job." The problem with the government is that we are constantly in a recession because nobody in government ever gets displaced or loses his job.

When I analyse the attitude of private sector operations and government operations, they are very different. What makes them different is that when recessions happen -- and we can go back to 1981-82, even into the early 1970s -- a purging process takes place in the private sector: "Maybe we've got a little fat. Maybe there are areas where we can cut back. Maybe there are programs we need to reduce." Because of course they have -- and I know a lot of members over there would consider it a dirty phrase -- that bottom line. That is one specific that is only applied to the private sector.

Although there are many lovely debates and statements and speeches about a recession, the fact is that anyone in this room, and anyone who works for the government of Ontario, really does not have to deal with the recession. The bottom line is that the private sector deals with the recession through layoffs, job losses, reductions, etc. According to this government -- and it is stated; I think the Treasurer has been very clear -- we are not even looking to reductions, we are not even looking to layoffs, etc. They are looking at jump-starting the economy, spending more money.

I think that is a clear signal that when a recession hits it does not hit here; it hits out there. When they lose their jobs out there, that is when the people feel the impact.

At least some of the $5 billion we borrow today, I believe a considerable amount of it, will be used to jump-start the economy, or phrases such as that. They believe it will help. This is where the philosophical difference comes into play. I think the government would be far better off chopping a whole bunch of money out of its budget and reducing the provincial sales tax by 4%. That would have a far greater impact on the economy. I think it would have a far greater impact on spending habits and on the cash flow throughout the province. It would be far more effective. I also believe it is far more effective if the private sector tries to jump-start its way out of the recession, because I do not think governments can, particularly provincial governments; clearly, municipal governments are in the same boat.

I guess this will be the first bill in a series of borrowing bills which will outline our philosophical differences. That is good. That is the democratic process and those are the things that should happen. When you elect NDP governments, these are the kinds of things that happen. I guess that is what the people liked and wanted and I suppose that is what they are going to get. Personally, it is not my idea, and being in the private sector world I know right now that we have gone through reductions in staff and reductions in operations. When you own businesses, you are in the private sector world, and you have to lay people off. That has happened in a number of businesses; I have had to do exactly that.

Here are the philosophical differences that will come. I think it is good to have these stated up front on the first $5 billion that the government is going to borrow -- which is kind of an interesting statement: the first $5 billion.

I also believe, contrary to the Liberal critic's statement, that there is only one way to stop governments from spending. It is another approach that I think most in this province would agree with. The only way to stop governments from spending is not to give them the money, because once they get the money it burns a hole in their pocket so wide that they cannot wait to get rid of it. It is clear that during a boom economy we increased the debt by $10 billion, etc. That was a boom economy, a time when we had a tremendous influx of money. At that time, we still had a government insisting on spending incredible sums of money. I disagree with the critic from the Liberal Party and probably the Treasurer. The best way to stop governments from spending is not to give them the money in the first place, because once they have it you know they are going to spend it. It would seem clear to me, with this borrowing and itemization of the amounts the Treasurer has outlined in his statement to the House today, that you could probably discount the Agenda for People as well. Clearly, we have some discrepancies with respect to how much money the Agenda for People will cost. Those numbers are serious in difference. I calculate mine over five years and I come to around $14 billion. They calculate theirs over a couple of years and I think they came in at $2 billion or $3 billion. But there is a difference of opinion.

I think with this first borrowing bill and the $700 million they spent on jump-starting the economy you can pretty well assure yourself that the bulk of the promises made by this government during the election period are going by the boards. The Agenda for People may jump-start the economy itself, because it could be the biggest revenue producer for the paper-shredder companies. It appears to be the only one that is going to have any benefit from the government that has taken over.

1550

I guess the debate is whether or not you agree with the $5 billion being borrowed. Clearly there is a need. Clearly the $2.5-billion deficit enters into it and I think if the Treasurer were being honest today he would agree that there is going to be greater than $2.5 billion in the deficit account at the end of next year. I have come to the conclusion that that in fact is going to happen. Even though I read his economic statement and he suggested that he wants to maintain that level, there is no way, in my opinion, if they are going to carry forward on some of these concerns and promises, that he has any prayer of maintaining a $2.5-billion deficit. It is going to get higher.

The argument was also made with respect to transfer payments. Transfer payments is a debate in which it depends on whose ox is being gored and what position you take on transfer payments. If it is a provincial government arguing with a federal government, it feels that it is being ripped off in no uncertain terms by agreements and details and it is upset because the federal transfer payments are being reduced, and the federal government says: "Oh, no, it's not. This is just sensible economic practice and, you know, you've got to learn to get by in tough times."

If it is the provincial government cutting off the municipalities, well, son of a gun, there are the municipalities that went to Hansard and read all the provincial government's arguments when they got cut back, and it is saying the exact same things. Lo and behold, I think you are going to hear this provincial government make the same argument the federal government made when it cut the transfer payments to municipalities, and mark my words, unless it has a pot of money stashed somewhere, the municipalities are going to be very, very disappointed with respect to their transfer payments.

We have already heard numbers. Hospitals in fact have outlined their concerns and education has outlined its concerns and you can only stretch a buck so far. This government has not got enough bucks to stretch, so somebody is going to have some problems. This government will be the first to stand up and start defending its transfer payment policy and, on the other side of its mouth, argue with the federal government about cutting them off.

So those are some other concerns I think you are going to see with respect to the financing, the economic impact, the economic statements that this government will make over the next few years. Again, I guess it comes back to the difference of opinion between our counterparts on this side of the House, the Liberals, and the government in power, the New Democrats. We philosophically, I suppose, do not agree with the way they approach the economics of this province, and it seems to me that they are very close in their ideology with respect to spending our way out of a recession and with respect to borrowing and so on and so forth.

An hon member: You voted with them.

Mr Stockwell: We voted with them to extend the sitting of the House, the honourable member would suggest. Imagine that; we voted to work longer. Gee, was that not awful? The only ones who did not vote to work longer were the Liberals, so it is an interesting comment he makes.

If we continue on with the debate on the $5 billion, the argument that will in fact be made in the future will be, there are only three ways to generate revenue. In fact, I have heard the Treasurer make that statement in the past. There are the revenues, deficit and so on and so forth and increased taxes. I think we are going to see a little bit of everything, and I think this is just the first piece of legislation, the first bill that indicates just that. I think the people in this province are going to have to get used to a little bit of everything. That means on the debt side it is your right pocket; on the tax increase side it is your left pocket, and when they run out of money and they are going to have to figure out a new way to generate it, it will be your hip pocket. So I think we are going to have to grow accustomed to this attitude towards government spending. As I said, it is the democratic process. The people get the governments they deserve and it appears they deserve the government they get.

In conclusion, $5 billion is a considerable amount of money. I understand that there are needs to be met and bills to be paid. I still wish that we could re-examine the philosophical differences that we had a few weeks ago. I still believe, and I think our party still believes, that before we go ahead and discuss any further spending, and before we go ahead and discuss any jump-starting of the economy, and before we go ahead and discuss any more borrowing, the most important thing that this government can do is examine the costs that have been incurred over the past 5 or 10 years and really examine its capacity to cut out the fat, because I will tell you, Madam Speaker, there is an incredible amount of fat in this level of government.

There is a tremendous amount of wasted money, there are a tremendous number of employees who are not needed, there are a tremendous number of employees who are in fact not working.

Mrs Sullivan: Where?

Mr Stockwell: The member can ask where. I can point her to almost any building and walk her through it and almost point, without any difficulty, to people the government could do away with.

Mrs Sullivan: Tell us.

Mr Stockwell: If the member is so naïve as to believe that this statement is not true, then we are never going to ever get to come to an agreement with respect to whether there is a cutback or not. The fact of the matter is I believe the people in this province would agree. And if anyone has been to certain government buildings, Ministry of Transportation, any of these government buildings, and can honestly look any taxpayer in the face and say every one of these people is necessary and every one of these people is important and if we did not have them they would not carry out the job properly, I think he is kidding himself, he is kidding his constituents, and most of all, he is kidding the people in this House.

We all know the fat is there, and I think before we talk any more about borrowing, it would be very important for the Treasurer to review the costs, review the expenditures, read the Provincial Auditor's statement and come back with some major reductions in areas that probably could fund a lot of these programs.

In my opinion, if the Treasurer really took a hard line on the cost implications to this province and took a hard line to cut out the fat -- the weight watchers would get rich cutting out the fat in this place -- if he took a hard line look at it, he would find so much fat that you could probably institute the Agenda for People and not cost the taxpayers a nickel.

In my opinion, before he goes borrowing, before he looks at new tax resources, before he even re-analyses the tax system, it would be far more beneficial to the people of this province if he analysed his spending, because in the private sector, when recession times hit, the only really controllable item is spending. You cannot drag people in off the street to buy your product. The only thing you can do is reduce your spending. If governments were reacting in the same fashion when we have a recession, they would review their spending. I do not see that as a commitment. Frankly, I am not surprised the Liberals disagree, considering their spending habits in the past five years.

Mr Ruprecht: I listened to the comments of the member for Etobicoke West carefully and I appreciated what he indicated. He had said to the Treasurer, who is in this House today listening very carefully, I understand, that the question really is whether the government can jump-start the economy or whether the private sector can. I suppose as Liberals we could be of some help to both of these parties.

On the one hand, the Treasurer might think that the economy can be jump-started, and there is much he can do, of course, to help out, but I would caution him very much and I would ask him to consider that it is the private sector that will essentially and necessarily have to get activated, either with this government's help or without it, in order to make necessary economic changes that we need in this country to get back on top.

To the Conservative Party, as the member from Etobicoke West indicated, the private sector is a very important aspect of jump-starting the economy, but I could say that we as Liberals would appreciate it if both these aspects could be integrated. We need both. We need government help and we certainly need the private sector.

I would very much appreciate it if the Treasurer would take that into consideration when he thinks about his new economic plan for the future of this province.

Mr McLean: I just want to compliment, for a minute, the member for Etobicoke West on his remarks. I want to tell the member that some time ago, back in about 1976, the then Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet indicated that there was a program in place whereby they would cut the civil service from about 84,000 to approximately 76,000. That took place over a period of about six years. Since the Liberals came to power it went back up and it is close to 90,000 now.

1600

When we looked at the estimates. we looked at the budgetary policies of the government and we looked at administration within every ministry. In some cases, some of those ministries had indicated their administration and head office, mainly head office, by some 150% to 200%. So when my colleague mentions cutting some fat, I believe there is some there to cut. Those were people who were hired by the government of the time to implement programs and put its agenda forward. I am sure that many of those people are still around, not knowing what the agenda is today.

I am saying to the Treasurer that I believe there is room to cut. If he looks at the estimates over the last five years, all the administration in ministers' head offices, he will find increases. One, I know, was a 300% increase. So I believe what my colleague is speaking about. There is fat there, and I ask the Treasurer to look into that. I also compliment the member on his remarks.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the member for the kind words.

I would also like to respond to the member for Parkdale's comments with respect to working together. I also believe there is an amount of working together, for lack of a better word, between the private sector and government. I guess the real difference, though, comes in my position of working together. Most businesses that I talk to, including my own -- boy, am I ever clear when I talk -- are suggesting the best way the government could help them is reduction in taxes, a reduction in all the complicated processing it takes to file certain tax forms and processes. When it gets down to the bottom line, I think the private sector is fully prepared to work its way out of this recession.

Nobody likes to lay people off. There is no joy in boardrooms when you have to lay people off. It is a sad statement on the economic times. But when the private sector calls for help -- my friend the member for Parkdale will know this -- I think the private sector is suggesting to the government: "You've got to give us a break. You've got to stop taxing us to death. You've got to stop forcing us into these complicated processes, these filing processes that in fact take up a tremendous amount of time and a tremendous amount of resource."

The best thing the government can do, I believe, to help this economy get restarted, obviously, is reduce taxes, thereby allowing more disposable income within the private sector, more money left to hire, more money left to in fact produce better products and create a better economic stability in the province.

The only thing I could suggest is that in all the studies that I have seen, this particular province in North America has in fact been taxed at one of the highest levels. I think it would be very helpful if we could draw ourselves down at least into the middle. It would certainly create, I think, better job opportunities and more businesses. The bankruptcies are a perfect example of that.

Mr Christopherson: I have a few brief remarks. I think that most of us in this House recognize that this is an extremely difficult time for our province, as we are in the midst of a serious recession that has the potential to get much more serious.

We are also facing increasing demands that have been placed on this government and the previous government for a number of years now. The health care system, the education system, the environment, our transportation needs, the increasing costs to municipalities: these are all very legitimate demands that have been placed on these governments. With a new government finding itself in a recessionary time, I think that I am hearing a fair amount of agreement that it is appropriate that the provincial government step in to ensure that as much as we can do is being done.

What I am hearing from a very small minority is that we ought to follow the example of the federal government and that we ought to be cutting back on government expenditures and paying absolutely no heed to the damage that it might do in the case of the federal government, to the institutions that hold Canada together and, in this case, to the real people of this province who would be hurt by such draconian measures.

It is interesting to hear the member for Etobicoke West talk about the Treasurer's anti-recessionary package, particularly the $700 million, and sit back and think of the possibility of that member or any other member going back to his local media, if there are any of these dollars that find themselves in that locale, helping the municipality, helping schools, helping infrastructure, helping real people, and in that situation saying to the local media and the people in his own riding: "The provincial government shouldn't have done this. It's wrong that this money is being invested in my community. It's wrong that this money is being invested in the infrastructure of my municipality." That is not likely to happen.

I am also hearing what sounds to me very much like the voodoo economics that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher propagated throughout the 1980s during boom times. We saw the devastation that that wrought upon real people -- real people, working people who were hurt because of supply-side, trickle-down theories that helped a very small amount of people to a great degree, but hurt a great number of people to a much larger degree.

I think that this government has moved in exactly the right direction and to the right degree that it should. I heard the member for Parkdale talk about the need for partnerships. This government embraces that concept. Again, with all the ridicule we hear from the third party, and from the official opposition from time to time, about going down to Wall Street and what that might mean and the characterization of it, the reality is that that was to send out the very message the member for Parkdale spoke of today: to tell the business community that we do recognize the need for partnerships, that business need not fear this government, that we will work with all sectors of our province to ensure that, first of all, we fight the recession as best we can and, second, that we are in the best possible position to respond when we begin to come out of the recession.

While we have heard Chicken Little suggest that the sky is falling because of this borrowing, indeed -- to enjoin some of the thinking of a previous speaker -- to do some history, we see that in the early 1980s, again when we were heading into a recession, we had borrowing that was the highest of the decade, under the Tory government.

Why, you would ask, Madam Speaker? That would be an excellent question. Why? Because it made a great deal of sense to ensure that the economy of this province was as strong as it could be to face an uncertain future. That is exactly what has been done here. There is nothing out of the ordinary in the actions of the Treasurer today. Indeed, if one takes it in the context of our times, it is probably not unlike a measure any other government would take if it truly cared about the people who are being hurt by this recession.

That is the priority facing us and this is a necessary tool to ensure that we can be in as strong a position as is possible. I am glad to see that the Treasurer has brought this in in the fashion that he has, and it has been my pleasure to speak today.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for Hamilton Centre has been very eloquent in his remarks when he says that this new government of the NDP is looking for partnership. I would think that all of us very much appreciate and applaud this kind of sentiment. But the member for Hamilton Centre will also recognize that on the one hand, the government says, "Let's be partners," and on the other hand or out of the same mouth, comes a totally different message. I ask the Treasurer what the message is. The message is the retroactive legislation centring out one group of people who could make what I would term, and what the member understands to be, a significant impact and contribution to the economic wellbeing of Ontario.

1610

Yet the member determines to centre that whole segment of our population out. That to me, the member for Hamilton Centre will understand, is not co-operation, compromise and partnership. What I see happening here is confrontation and that is my second point.

If this government really wants to get into a partnership, the member should not seek to confront. The member for Etobicoke West, I think, is to some degree right on when he says, "Let's look at this partnership and let's do one thing for the business of this country, namely, reduce taxes."

I would ask the Treasurer, with the consent of the member for Hamilton Centre, what is wrong with the Treasurer simply reducing taxes for the business community. That would send out a signal right across this country, and to New York where some of the money comes from, and to all the people, and they would say, "Let's get back to Ontario because that government understands us and wishes to be a partner."

Mr Stockwell: You got into bed with them, not us.

Mr Turnbull: I will just settle down the member in front of me.

I stand for the first time to speak extemporaneously in this chamber. All of my colleagues on all benches will understand how difficult it is to focus your thoughts when you stand for the first time in this way. But I want to make a comment that has been made in heckling and in speeches by both the gentlemen on the Liberal benches and certainly the Conservative benches. The NDP may have many estimable members, but they do not have a corner on concern for people.

I want this to be very clearly understood. Probably the thing that more than anything else led me to run in this last election -- I had never been in politics ever before and I am not used to speaking publicly -- nevertheless, I will focus on the reason that I ran, and that is my concern for what is happening in this province and, to a great extent, also in the country.

We have to come to the realization, and this applies to all parties, that to the extent that we do not pay our way, any deficit is just deferred taxes, taxes which we are heaping on to the backs of children.

We recognize that we are in a recession and we know that the government will have to borrow in order to meet its needs. That is not the thrust of what we are debating. We accept that, but the government should be very careful as to how it borrows. This money should be carefully spent, and indeed we can see from examples of the Minister of Housing that it is not being carefully spent.

Mr Christopherson: I will just briefly respond to the comments, the last comment first. The member for York Mills talked about us having the corner on concern. That certainly was not what I was trying to project and I do not believe it is what my colleagues are trying to project. However, what we are saying is that the philosophical differences talked about by the honourable member for Etobicoke West in our opinion do lead to a choice between who benefits by those measures and who does not. We believe that the kind of measures suggested by the member's finance critic would lead to average, ordinary working people being hurt the most, and that probably is our philosophical difference.

It is also important, I think -- the member for Parkdale talked about partnership -- let's keep in mind that the bill that was passed earlier today had two major components to it that also talk to the issue raised by the member for York Mills. One of them is the fact that there was a $22-million offset to vendors, a compensation to vendors, and that compensation, as I understand it, is meant to alleviate some of the costs that will be incurred by small business due to the introduction of the GST. That is our measure; that was a measure we left in place.

The second thing is that when we talk about tax expenditures, rather than a tax expenditure again to business that the member for York Mills talked about, what we have said is that any tax reduction that we will do in the first days of this new government will go to the people it will help the most. That, again, was passed today unanimously; that half a billion dollars is in the pockets of the people who need it the most and will help stimulate the economy the most.

Mr Conway: There is an old maxim in British parliamentary government: "No supply without a redress of grievance." I recognize that this is not supply per se, but the loan act, entitling as it does our honourable friend the member for Nickel Belt to borrow in Her Majesty's name up to $5 billion over this fiscal year and part of next, is certainly going to be an important instrument to feed the supply machine that will keep him and his happy colleagues in business.

I must say the debate of the last hour or so has been interesting. I regret I did not hear the honourable Treasurer's introductory remarks, although I did catch some as I re-entered the chamber. It has been interesting listening to people talk.

I found the member for Etobicoke West quite interesting. I think we have ourselves -- I say to my friend the member for Nickel Belt -- Eddie Sargent, Mickey Hennessy and Morty Shulman all wrapped in one person. I think we are going to be entertained to some considerable extent over the next four years and six months by the honourable member for Etobicoke West, who I would only make this observation to:

When I was first elected in 1975, which seems like a long time ago and which I think would be recalled by many as happy times, prosperous times, the first budget that I encountered here was brought down by -- I think my friend the member for Nickel Belt would agree -- one of the ablest of the Tories ever to serve here in his time and in mine, the Duke of Kent, William Darcy McKeough.

That budget -- when I think of it now, I say to the Treasurer -- had an expenditure base of something like $12 billion, $12 billion to $13 billion, and the deficit that the tough-minded, right-wing Duke of Kent was offering on that $12-billion base was, I think, $2 billion. In other words, 15 years ago we were running a $2-billion deficit on a $12-billion to $13-billion expenditure plan.

Mr Bradley: Under a Tory government.

Mr Conway: Under a Tory government. That seems incredible when I think of it now. We would consider then, by current terms, an $8-billion deficit to be somehow acceptable. I think my friend the member for Nickel Belt would not accept, nor would I, an $8-billion deficit on a $44-billion expenditure plan to be very reasonable. But when I think of it, a $2-billion deficit 15 years ago on a $12-billion to $13-billion budgetary plan is really a remarkable bit of history, I would say to my friend the member for Etobicoke West.

1620

Someone mentioned 1981. I think it was the member for Hamilton Centre. My voluble friend the member for St Catharines was observing parenthetically that in 1981, of course, the government got itself into some trouble immediately upon its return to majority status by committing hundreds of millions of dollars that it did not have at the time to buy a significant interest in Suncor and something about a couple of aircraft. I do not remember those aircraft. I am reminded, though, that in 1981 the new government undertook some very significant borrowing to give effect to a couple of expenditures that I do not remember were widely advertised in the electoral contest of February-March of that year.

Again, to perhaps just make an observation about something my friend the member for Etobicoke West observed, he talked about fat. He talked about the ability, almost with a kind of joyfulness that one does not associate in this connection --

Hon Mr Laughren: He was drooling.

Mr Conway: The Treasurer said he was drooling as he talked about cutting the fat. My friend the Treasurer will remember that happy time a decade or so ago when the late great Maxwell Henderson produced, again at Darcy McKeough's behest, a government reduction plan that did not have very many friends around. My friend from Etobicoke, who I know has quite a record in terms of expenditure and expenditure restraint, would I think admit privately if not publicly that it is rather more difficult to cut these expenditures than the rhetoric would sometimes suggest.

Like my colleagues, I will be supporting Bill 9. I think the Treasurer certainly should be supported in this connection.

Hon Mr Laughren: As in all other matters.

Mr Conway: I want to support the Treasurer for a variety of reasons. He is a very good fellow. He is smart, he is experienced, he is very able and he has had a bit of a tough time, everything from being reprimanded a bit yesterday by the leader of the government for an answer given on the Fair Tax Commission and its membership, a matter that was clarified today in an exchange with the leader of the third party.

I have felt for the Treasurer in two or three cases since his accession to the Treasury bench. What he must have felt like that day when the Varity deal was finally consummated; what he must have felt like that day when the British Gas takeover of Consumers Gas was approved. It could not have been easy.

There was a time, Mr Speaker, before you arrived here in December 1983, when our friend the member for Nickel Belt was the most passionate ideologue in the New Democratic Party. I tell you, he has had to put some water in his wine in the last few months. He says that he is still doing it. I want to support him on Bill 9 because he has had some tough days lately but they are as nothing compared to what awaits him over the coming few months.

One of the reasons I wanted to talk a little bit about the issues related to Bill 9 is what I know the honourable Treasurer has to confront shortly after Christmas. We are not going to be in session apparently to talk about it then, so I thought I might take a few moments today. I want to talk about it a little today because he is going to need this money to help, among other things, with his transfer payment announcements, which I expect will probably come about the second or third week of January.

I just want to wish him well in that. I hope he and his colleagues have a good rest over Christmas because I have a feeling that the morning after or the evening of it is going to be a new experience for my friends opposite, whether in Scarborough or in Lambton or in Cochrane --

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Don't be patronizing, Sean.

Mr Conway: I am not being patronizing. I want to say to my friend the Minister of Health that it is going to be a new experience and I say to my friend opposite that Bill 9, I presume, in part will assist the Treasurer and his colleagues as they go about the very difficult business that that particular announcement is going to involve.

What my friends may not realize is that two thirds of the Ontario budget -- and that really is irrespective of whatever the bottom budget line is -- is appropriated to three departments: the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: Oh, you think we haven't noticed? Patronizing.

Mr Conway: I am sure the Minister of Health notices this. I would invite the Minister of Health to be just a little more tolerant and perhaps a little more generous. I know we go back a long way and I have been trying to restrain myself, I think with admirable effect, over the last few weeks. I would have thought my example might have encouraged her to do something of the same.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: That is patronizing and I do --

Hon Mr Laughren: That hasn't rubbed off on all your colleagues, though.

Mr Conway: Well, listen, I tell the member it is adding years to my life over here to do this and I hope that my friend the member for Nickel Belt will at least give me some credit for trying.

The interesting thing about Bill 9 of course, as it relates to the transfer payment business, and I repeat, two thirds of this budget will go to those three departmental appropriations, and it is in those areas that my honourable friends opposite have made some very significant commitments. What they have not said by way of what they are going to do to assist nurses and hospital workers and other support staff in schools, homes for the aged and other agencies in those three areas of this government's ambit is hard for me to convey in the time provided this afternoon.

I will be very interested to see how, for example, the Minister of Health is going to take the appropriation provided in the third week of January and satisfy the nurses, the hospital workers and all of those other wonderful men and women who make up those institutions, who will be expecting and in some cases who will have been told by an arbitrator what their entitlement is going to be. We will all be watching to see how in Prince Edward county, in Niagara Falls, in Haliburton and in London these various commitments are going to be kept because they were honourably made, and I say that most sincerely.

I know the Treasurer is going to want in the coming weeks to give effect to those commitments. When I look, for example, as I will in a moment, at An Agenda for People and think about a minimalist interpretation of what some of those commitments are, when I read the eastern Ontario press and see, for example, what hospitals in Cornwall, Kingston, Ottawa, Pembroke, Renfrew and Brockville are saying about their in-year deficit pressure, in many cases caused by circumstances quite beyond their control, this is not some great institutional cry for more money. These are nurses, nursing assistant, orderlies and other support staff who, the member for Niagara South will know very well, are expecting what they have been promised or what has been arbitrated.

In the third week of January we are apparently going to see what the colour of the 1991-92 commitment is going to be. I really begin to wonder whether the $5 billion provided for in Bill 9 is going to start fulfilling that commitment. The government of the day has, for example, promised school boards that in very early days in this mandate, they will be moving to 60% funding, and I see that in An Agenda for People there is a conservative estimate of what that commitment is going to entail.

I cannot imagine but that down in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Joe Gunn and others are going to be looking at this and saying, "Well now, this is the first opportunity," and the move to 60% -- which is going to be staged, it is not going to be overnight, we all understand that. But I look at An Agenda for People and I see some of the first-year costs and they run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. My estimate is they will mature at four or five years at about -- I will not even cite that figure, but it is into the billions and that is built into the base. That is not one-time funding; that is base funding.

My friend the Chair of Management Board will know what that means. I would hope that all of the members of the Legislature will share with me our support and our sympathy for the Treasurer and his colleague in these matters, the Chair of Management Board, who are going to have to square this circle over the course of the next five weeks. I know the member for Nickel Belt has Merlin-like qualities, and if anyone can do this I am sure he can. But as we look at a number of the commitments that have been made, I have to ask myself and I would ask the Treasurer, I suppose, how much of this $5 billion we can expect, for example, will be appropriated -- where shall I start?

Mrs McLeod: The Futures program.

1630

Mr Conway: The Futures program today is perhaps a very good example, my colleague the member for Fort William mentions. The member for Brantford I thought quite eloquently pointed out the difficulties the program is currently experiencing. I thought the Minister of Education gave quite a good answer and she is being very candid. That is really a ball that bounces directly into the Treasurer's court: What is he going to do about maintaining the funding for that program?

As a member from eastern Ontario, and I know I speak for the Deputy Speaker in this respect, farmers in Dundas county and in Renfrew are going to expect that some of this $5 billion that we are going to vote approval for in Bill 9, I hope today, is going to begin the process of this new government's interest rate relief for the very strapped farmers of Renfrew and of Stormont and of all other agricultural parts of the province.

The Agenda for People could not be plainer, I say to my friend the member for Niagara South: "Up to $100 million would be made available," by way of interest rate relief to help alleviate the growing burden for farmers across the province. I know that in your counties, Mr Speaker, and certainly in mine, there will be an expectation that as winter develops some of the moneys we are giving the Treasurer borrowing approval for will in fact go to that particular commitment.

Of course, there is as well the interest rate relief being offered to moderate- and low-income property owners, spoken of, again, quite eloquently in An Agenda for People. "We'd offer," they say in An Agenda for People, "10.5% mortgages to moderate-income families for 10-year terms." I am not going to take the time of the House to talk about an extremely attractive interest rate program that would, according to this, make $1.4 billion in mortgage funds available to the people of Ontario.

Child care, employment equity: very important commitments that I know my friends opposite are going to want to meet and show in the first year of the mandate that they are as good as their commitment. I do not mean to be unreasonable. It is like this move to 60% funding. We do not expect the several billion dollars built into the base in the first year, but I think people in Niagara-on-the-Lake are going to expect that by the spring the first airlift of several hundred millions of those dollars will start to show up in the base of school transfers as the province moves to 60% funding.

Those are certainly some of the issues that I think are going to be very much before the people of Ontario as the Legislature goes into recess over the course of this particular winter season. I suppose I should direct as well a couple of specific comments to my friend the member for Nickel Belt as a northern member, because I know he more than most over there is going to want to make sure that some of this money, not, perhaps, a great amount of it but some of this money, is going to go forward to begin the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway across northern Ontario.

I must say this: I am an eastern representative, but one of the things I have long admired about the NDP is the eloquence, the passion and the consistency of its commitment over the decades to regional disparity and the need to deal with that. No one has been more passionate in that regard than the member for Nickel Belt.

When I read, for example, in An Agenda for People that if favoured with the opportunity to govern this province the New Democratic Party would create "a northern fund of $400 million over two years, returning money...to the north, to promote economic development, job protection and job creation," and that this fund "would be supported at a rate of $200 million a year," when I read further in An Agenda for People that if the electors of Ontario should favour the NDP with the responsibility of office it would four-lane very substantial portions of the Trans-Canada Highway through Nickel Belt, through Algoma and other wonderful constituencies in northern Ontario and that it would make not less than $100 million available for that, and I suppose for me in a funny kind of way one of the commitments that means most -- it is always on my mind because I drive a lot. I dare say I drive probably as much as anyone in this Legislature and have a licence to prove it.

Hon Mr Laughren: And a claim to fame.

Mr Conway: And I am not very proud of it either. But the other day I was driving from Pembroke, where I live, to Toronto, as I do most weekends, and within the space of that four-hour-and-20-minute drive, 400-plus kilometres, I watched gasoline prices fluctuate by seven, eight cents a litre, and I thought of a commitment made by my friends in the New Democratic Party.

Mr Bisson: You're concerned now.

Mr Conway: I am glad to see the voluble member for Cochrane South here, because I hope and I expect that some of this appropriation is going to go to keep the promise, a promise made from Shining Tree to Moonbeam and from Mattawa to Emo, that our friends in the New Democratic Party would very shortly, upon taking office, move to equalize on a province-wide basis gasoline prices in Ontario. I say this in the spirit of the Christmas season and with a view to Bill 9. I do not want my friends from Cochrane South and Cochrane North and Nickel Belt and Timiskaming and Sudbury city and Port Arthur to go home this Christmas and to explain in coffee shops across the region that gasoline prices in, for example, Hearst are running 20 cents above the prices in Windsor and they have done nothing about it.

I say to my friend the member for Cochrane South that I thought the member for Lanark-Renfrew was quite able today in pointing out what the Minister of Energy said the other day. For people like the member for Nickel Belt and I it was positively breathtaking. I hope my friends opposite will understand how those of us in -- dare I say? -- the old line parties can be excused if we judge the New Democratic Party by the only standard that is relevant, and that is the NDP standard and it is simply this: For as long as I have been a member the NDP has been passionate and no one more so than the member for Nickel Belt with, "Give us a chance, people of Ontario, and we will move with expedition and effect to remove the disparity in gasoline prices."

And what did we hear the other day? I am almost encouraged to make a northern tour, as I normally do during the winter, and report what the member for Peterborough said. The member for Peterborough said that she knows nothing about a plan to equalize prices. She knows nothing of the Nova Scotia commission. She knows only that her staff is monitoring, and her advice to the farmers of Lanark and the rural folk in Renfrew -- and God forbid that the people in northern Ontario should ever see these remarks -- she said a significant part of the answer is, "You ought to simply consume less."

1640

The minister is quite right, I think, in observing that we can all do more, in some cases substantially more, to conserve, but I am saying that I might just have to go to Shining Tree and make a speech about how one conserves in so far as liquid transport or home heating fuels in Shining Tree or in Blind River as compared to the opportunities in Ottawa, Windsor, Hamilton or in Metropolitan Toronto. I think the NDP poll captains in Shining Tree will understand how the honourable Minister of Energy's suggestion and policy is simply not very sensible.

So my point is simply this: I expect that some of this money is going to be made available to the government to keep the commitment to northern Ontario about gasoline prices; not an insignificant or trivial commitment -- a commitment honourably and passionately made by the New Democratic Party over the years and throughout all parts of northern Ontario and pursued in this Legislature.

I expect, I say to my friend from Cochrane North, that when he goes to Iroquois Falls early in the new year, he will want to be able to say more than the Minister of Energy said the other day about keeping the promise. Nine years ago my friend the member for Nickel Belt and I dined out on that phrase and what it meant in another day about another game.

The NDP, we know, is better and purer than the rest. That is a given, and I do not quarrel with that, notwithstanding what I heard Carol Phillips say the other day that made me think that you people are thinking about running a Tammany Hall that would embarrass George Washington Plunkett of the boot-black stand at the New York City courthouse. At any rate, we know that the NDP is better and purer; they say so, they have said so repeatedly, and I have accepted that. What they have said about the old-line parties I could recite ad nauseam, but I am not going to.

I look at my friend from Blind River or from Algoma, and I know how he feels about gasoline prices, I know how he feels about double-tracking the Trans-Canada Highway, I know how he feels about the northern development fund, and I know he was pained to hear that the Minister of Northern Development said what she is allegedly reported to have said in the Lakehead the other week. I know he is going to exercise his significant influence within the executive council to keep the promise of An Agenda for People.

I do not want the northerners in this government caucus going home at Christmas having to say that all they have offered is garbage for Kirkland Lake and gasoline prices that in Hearst are 20 cents a litre higher than they are in Windsor. If that is the message, the poor parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Cochrane North, is going to want to spend all of his time in Pembroke and south of the northern-southern line. Where else could he go? He could go to London, he could go to Pembroke and he could go to Toronto to deliberate ad infinitum on the great question of the moose tag lottery.

I must say, parenthetically, I think the minister has a very good idea and I hope he is able to do what the latter part of the release suggests -- although I do not necessarily share the view in that regard of the member from Regent Park, who was getting a bit exercised earlier today on that account. I have not met the member for Cochrane North; he seems like quite an estimable fellow. But to send the poor man home this Christmas armed with nothing but the Minister of Energy's statement on gasoline prices -- I say no amount of good news on the moose tag question is going to shield him from, I suspect, the discontent of his electors.

So I say to the member for Nickel Belt, the team of the caucus and the Minister of Finance for the province, I expect you will keep the promise, and you will most especially keep the promise on gasoline prices, on northern development funds, on four-laning those highways, and I will watch with great interest. I probably will not be here, but I will be interested to read the Picton Gazette, I will be very interested to hear how the new member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings is going to cope with the Prince Edward Board of Education or the local home for the aged or the nurses, because I have a feeling I know the message the very honourable member is going to have to deliver. It is going to be interesting reading in the Glengarry News and the Picton Gazette and in the Blind River Trombone. It is really going to make for interesting reading.

When I look again at the Agenda for People, I am absolutely astonished by where it is the government has made the commitment. I think they are absolutely honourably motivated when they say their primary concern and their principal obligation are to those in the community who are the most disadvantaged. Their exquisite problem is that they have made big-ticket commitments to a whole bunch of other people, in relative terms. They are going to have to find a way to do something about that. They will work hard, and I suspect they will have a measure of success.

I know one of my colleagues is going to talk a little more about the kind of fiscal manoeuvring the Treasurer has already engaged in to get this deficit where it is. I would say that he is a sly fox, is our Treasurer --

Mr Callahan: He is a silver fox.

Mr Conway: He is a silver fox as well, but I do not think he is quite Les Frost; I do not think we could say that of this Treasurer. But he does have a very real problem, that is, that he and all his colleagues will want to keep the commitment to those who, particularly in a time of recession, are really experiencing some very significant difficulty.

I do not think there is a member here, I do not think there is anyone who knows anything about Dover township or Jarvis or Haliburton village, who would disagree with everyone's interest in doing the right thing for the people who are really hurting. But the real problem is the big-ticket commitments. The really big-ticket items have all been made to a different group of people. The Treasurer knows it. He will never say it. I do not expect him to say it, but all of his colleagues are going to have an opportunity by mid-January to begin the explanation in earnest. I will give the honourable Treasurer credit. He is starting to prepare the ground. The recession is very tough. We all know that, so he is lowering expectations, not perhaps as effectively as the leader of the government, but none the less he is moving in that direction.

Putting it really bluntly, what will be left for the unemployed auto parts worker in Chatham when the doctors, to start with -- I would love to see the private budget notes about what is tucked in there for the doctors' settlement. I suspect only two people in the government are ever going to see these notes; that is probably as it should be, because if they saw it in Sharbot Lake, there might be a march on Mountain Grove. I do not know.

It is going to be interesting, however, when the doctors, the teachers, the nurses, the public servants and a couple of others are concluded with, to see what will be left for the unemployed farmer in Delhi or the out-of-work auto parts worker in Dover township. It is going to be tough. It is going to be tough for all of us. I do not mean to make light of the difficulty that the honourable Treasurer faces, but, put most bluntly, the commitments that have been honourably entered into are at some variance with what I think everybody is going to want to do. I am not here to suggest for a moment that our friends in the medical profession should be abused in these discussions. Far be it from me to suggest that.

I said the other day that one of the things I know the New Democratic Party is not is a Social Credit party in fiscal and monetary terms. Accepting that as a premise, I will watch with some real interest how in the coming weeks the Treasurer takes the money that is going to be made available by virtue of the passage of Bill 9 and begins to keep his commitments. I have cited just some.

1650

I want to make just one or two other closing observations. I am going to use this opportunity to talk a little bit about energy policy. I was struck the other day by, I thought, a very good statement from the Treasurer about the economic outlook. I found it quite sobering. Quite frankly, I hope it is as good as these numbers would suggest. My guess is that this recession may be biting deeper into Ontario than we even yet understand and that in fact it may be more protracted than the very good officials working for the government of Ontario imagine.

I think that one of the really bedevilling factors for economic planning and growth over the next few months and the next few years is going to be energy. I have some sympathy. The statement that the Treasurer presented about economic forecasting for the next year or two spent some time talking about the volatility of gasoline prices and what that does, for example, to inflation and to an economy like Ontario's.

One watches on a daily basis the developments in the Persian Gulf and one hopes that diplomacy is going to resolve that short of a conflagration. But should we get the latter, and I hope and pray we do not, one really begins to think about what that could mean in terms of the short and intermediate impacts for the Ontario and the whole North American and Western European economies. I think my friends opposite would be the first to admit that every day a development seems to suggest peace, gasoline prices drop, at least on the futures market, to quite an extent. When a negative scenario develops out of Washington or out of the Gulf region, the reverse happens. That is causing a lot of very real concern.

There are some aspects of our own domestic energy policy that are really beginning to trouble a lot of people. Although I feel perfectly entitled to take this opportunity today to talk a little bit about this, it will be just a very brief reference today. I will look for an opportunity later in this session to go on at some greater length about this.

I would say this to the Treasurer, as the person to whom the business community will look in this province as its port in the storm. He will be, I think, a comforting, candid, bright and sensible port in that connection. But I know he will know that there is a growing concern about whither the domestic energy policy of the province of Ontario goes.

I have been on my feet largely as a member from a community where there has been a long and strong commitment to nuclear research and I am sure some of my friends opposite will see this as very much a local perspective. It is that, to be sure, but it is more than that. I have spent a lot of time here over the course of 15 years looking at the practical alternatives and I will say at the outset that I completely agree with the position that is being advanced that we can do more.

We can do much more on the conservation account. There is no question about that. From a personal point of view, I would really like to see that, because it will make my bills better and it will certainly accord with my lifestyle in a very happy way. But when the Minister of Energy says what she says, I know in Haliburton and in Blind River they are not going to be very happy. That is just on the liquid transport side.

In rural Renfrew county, as in rural Haliburton, we do not have the TTC and we do not have Gray Coach and we do not have OC Transpo. So our alternatives are very, very limited, and to be told that we are simply going to have to conserve substantially more of a very much more expensive liquid transport fuel is neither fair nor sensible. There are lots of places where one can make savings, and we will expect the government to take leadership in that respect.

I know that my friends opposite have probably taken the Minister of Energy to a consciousness-raising session someplace in the precinct, but I do accept that we can do more. I thought the report from Loblaw's and Hydro that they have oversold or overcommitted the lightbulb business is very encouraging. It tells me once again that everyone wants to do more, and I encourage the government to certainly encourage the minister to pursue those kinds of conservation initiatives.

I am not saying that one has to be a slavish devotee of the nuclear option, not at all. I make my position known on the basis of a lot of select committee experience and I think a fairly reasonable assessment of what the real alternatives are.

The point I want to get to is simply this: This Minister of Energy said some things that I hope are beginning to be understood, though I suspect they are not being understood. The Minister of Energy is saying -- and this has enormous economic impacts for the province both individually and from the point of view of labour unions and businesses that generate jobs and wealth in this province -- in case the members have not heard, it is her hope and expectation and it is almost, I think, the government's plan to try to avoid building any new capacity for a considerable period of time by dint of conservation alone.

That, I tell my friends, is an exceedingly tall order. That is much, much more than "Drive less and get Dave Nichol and Ontario Hydro to give you those new fluorescent lightbulbs," all of which is very laudable. That is much, much more. My friend the member for Nickel Belt knows what of I talk, and I am going to make just one quick reference.

I think it was six years ago when I as a member was in Sudbury on business that had nothing to do with energy and I walked into a storm that I have never seen the like of. It was over a fairly timorous proposal about time-of-use rates. My friend the member for Nickel Belt will remember -- if he does not, I will take him to my clipping file because I will never forget. Oh, the outrage in northern Ontario, in the big industrial town of Sudbury particularly. But it will be no less so in Hamilton and in Windsor, and particularly in the north.

The kind of conservation policy that is being imagined and inevitably planned for will make, by my reckoning, a massive intrusion in the lifestyles of individuals and of businesses right across the province. If the proposal has not changed, it will have a particularly bad skew for northern Ontario. I cannot imagine, I must say -- on another day, I am going to be trying to draw the Minister of Energy out on this very interesting new conservation initiative, because who could be opposed to it? It is the right course of action. It is warm, cuddly and user-friendly as long as we are talking about the sorts of things we all think we are talking about.

I endorse all of that, but I just say to my friends opposite, particularly in the context of current and projected economic circumstances, that one of the most radical policies that the government appears to be embarked upon is its energy policy. I would be the first to say -- and I would say it hopefully in the presence of my illustrious friend the Minister of Health, who has done more good work on this subject than anyone I can ever remember in my 15 years here -- that I think we do have to really start to change the way we behave in the consumption of energy. I am not going to say that the changes just have to be marginal. To do what the Minister of Energy is suggesting is, I repeat, by my calculation, a massive intrusion into the lifestyle of families, of individuals and of business and industry.

I remember passing through Sudbury when some local politicians were having to explain to a lot of Ed Broadbent's ordinary Canadians what I could only describe as a fairly timorous time-of-use rate proposal was going to mean in that wonderful city in midnorthern Ontario. That proposal, six years ago I think it was, produced a firestorm. I suspect --

Mrs McLeod: It's still out there.

Mr Conway: Oh, it is still out there, and I have been watching and reading and listening with very great care to what the Minister of Energy is saying. She has taken the proposition much further, I think. I repeat, if we in this province are going to obviate the need for any new capacity over the next few years by dint of conservation, ouch, I say. Ouch, I say, in a big and persistent way. That will be of concern --

1700

Hon Mr Laughren: You are such a traditionalist.

Mr Conway: Listen, I may be a traditionalist, because I have watched, for example, over 15 and a half years how politicians, myself included, react when a blast furnace is open in front of them and when there is not very much of an asbestos shield -- bad phrase, I suppose, but, wow, I know what I do. My first instinct is to back away as quickly as possible from something that feels very hot and that is burning when I --

Hon Mr Laughren: Therein lies the difference.

Mr Conway: My friend opposite says, "Therein lies the difference." I am prepared, I say to my friends opposite, to accept that assessment. I want to be there the day, however, when Leo Gerard and Bob White have to confront what I think is the inevitable consequence of some of the new energy policies. I want to say to my friends opposite I do not want to see my friend the member for Nickel Belt having to retreat any further from the Varity and British Gas battlement.

I was reading something the other day -- I think it was in the Herald Tribune -- where the poor Swedish Social Democrats are beating a hasty retreat from certain energy policies that look painfully familiar, because of course the Swedish Social Democrats have the responsibility of government, and they are now starting to realize what some very wonderfully theological commitments are going to mean. They like office; they like the things they are doing, and I repeat, the international presses the other day suggested that the Swedish Social Democrats are backing away as fast as their happy little feet will take them from their policy of certain moratoria.

I only say to the Treasurer. to come back to my earlier point --

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, it is not clear; it is not absolutely clear. It is in my area, and again I speak as a local member. All I can tell members is that after initial assurances that the freeze was not going to mean anything, I go home to be told that multimillion-dollar contracts have been cancelled and scores of jobs are already at issue.

I want to be clear where I am coming from. I represent, as the member for Renfrew North, a constituency where 2,000 people work at the nuclear laboratory centre. We have got some of the highest levels of continuous unemployment of any region in the province. So this is a very real, bread-and-butter issue, and if I am being true to my mandate and responsibility, as I believe I am, I must come here as the member for Renfrew North and communicate to the government, and particularly to a significant member of the government such as the Treasurer, how worried my constituents are and my communities are about the developing trend in energy policy.

I expect that others are going to moderate this, and all we ask for is that fairness and balance characterize the deliberation. We are all very aware of what the party policy has been, and we respect the kind of pressure that honourable members, particularly those on the Treasury bench, are under in this regard.

But I want to say to my friend opposite that there have been few things that have been as important to the economic advantage that Ontario has been able to offer in the postwar period like our supply of non-interruptible, competitively priced electrical energy. We jeopardize that at our peril, because it is a very real concern to the millions of people unemployed. I am not saying and I do not want to suggest that there is any premeditated plan to do this, but I have to tell the Treasurer that there are growing fears out there about what some of the unintended consequences of his government's energy policy may be.

I want to use this opportunity today to ask the Treasurer, to implore him at the council table to understand that options must be maintained and they are not going to be available if a "zap you're frozen" policy is pursued with great vigour over the next three or four years to such an extent that the option will not be available. The research capacity, the development capacity will simply not be there in four or five or eight years' time when they may very well need it and when, in my view, we are going to need it.

My own view is that we have to have a balanced and mixed energy policy as we look to the next century. I am not going to argue in this debate or in any other that we should give ourselves over entirely to one option. I know there are people opposite who probably think we can do and we should do more with hydraulic power. I tell them, few constituencies have been carved up quite like mine has been in this regard.

Hon Mr Laughren: Did you get the note?

Mr Conway: I got the note.

I have a mandate and I am going to speak to my mandate. My good friend from Bruce knows that. The people of Renfrew sent me here to speak to their concerns and I want to be very, very frank. This is of very real and growing concern to them because it is jobs; it could be hundreds, thousands of jobs in my area of consistent, perpetual double-digit inflation.

Like my friend from Haliburton, we have disaster in the resource sector for reasons that have a lot to do with international conditions, and they are not going to be solved overnight. But to face a constituency where the unemployment rises with a suggestion from our own government that we have a way to add to that unemployment in perhaps a very irresponsible way in the intermediate and long term is something I know my friends opposite would want me to observe on behalf of the thousands of people that it is my honour to represent.

My friend the member for Bruce does have a point, and I want to resume my seat by again reiterating that I am pleased to vote in support of Bill 9. I know the Treasurer is going to need this $5 billion and he is going to need more because he has initiated a parade on something other than an empty street and the suppliants and supplicants are everywhere.

They have been encouraged, they have been fostered and sponsored in ways that are going to provide him and his colleagues with no little bit of excitement, not the least of that excitement to begin on or about the third week of January. In the Christmas season, I wish him well in that and all other tasks that he will pursue in response to the issues of Bill 9.

Mr Drainville: I am very pleased to hear that the honourable member is going to be supporting the bill. I would hate to see the length of speech he would give if he was against the bill.

These acts of legislatus interruptus are at times a little bit cloying, especially when we hear comments made. as we normally do in this House lately, about the promises that the government has made. We constantly hear that these promises are not being kept, even though we see clearly in terms of the government docket that we have legislation being presented that is going to lead our province in the direction that we very much have indicated to the people of Ontario we want it to go.

As I was listening to the honourable member, I was thinking of the characterization that was once made of Charles II, just after he died, by John Wilmot, the Earl of Rochester. He said:

Here lies our sovereign lord the King,

Whose promise none relies on;

He never said a foolish thing,

Nor ever did a wise one.

As we look at the promises, not only of our party but of the parties across the road, we have seen through so many elections and through so many years that the promises have not been kept easily by the other parties. They have imposed upon us difficulties in terms of finances which we are going to do our best to rectify in the days ahead. We are going to proceed with the directions from An Agenda for People.

I said yesterday, and it bears repeating again in the House, when we speak about an agenda for people, we mean precisely that. It is not an agenda for the rich, it is not an agenda for the powerful, it is not an agenda for those in prestige and authority, but it is an agenda for people. As such, we have made our commitments plain. The honourable member mentions the fact that we have associations with labour. The honourable member is right. We are proud of those associations.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time has expired.

1710

Mr Bisson: I am so pleased to hear the member for Renfrew North being so eloquent in his support of this bill. I make the same point as the member across the aisle makes, that I shudder to think about just how long he will talk in the event he is against something.

Mr Elston: Just you wait.

Mr Bisson: We will wait, no problem. I am glad to see there is a new-found concern for the average Ontarian in what the member was saying, and I hope in the next six months and when he is gone that he will have an opportunity to sit back and think about that.

One thing that distressed me was that there was a mention made about the moose tag situation in northern Ontario. I notice there was a lot of laughter on the Liberal side of the House when it came to that issue. Well, I say it is a serious issue and northerners take that issue with big seriousness, because it is something that is important to us. To think it is something that can be taken lightly maybe shows some of the attitude they have towards northern Ontario, and I am quite distressed to see that.

The member also talked about the question of announcements with regard to the gas prices in northern Ontario. I agree with him, and it has always been the position of this party that gas prices have to be in a position where they make some sense from one end of the province to the other. I do not think anybody from this side of the House disagrees with that, but a few of the figures he used were somewhat misleading. As the member for Cochrane South and from the north, it is an issue I am concerned about with the rest of the people in my caucus. The price, I will let the member know, was 62.9 cents this weekend in Timmins, the same as it is here in Toronto -- 62.9 cents.

It is amazing. I do not know if all of a sudden they are starting to come in line because they see that we may do something about it. I urge the private sector to do it on its own, because I do not think the member is advocating for one minute that we should just do things unilaterally. I would ask the retailers out there to come in line with that. The prices in Kapuskasing obviously have to come down a little bit more. But I thank the member for his eloquence and I look forward to the moment when he stands in this House in opposition to a bill to see what he is going to say. I thank the member for his support.

Mr Conway: I would like to be very brief. I may not have been clear in what I was saying about promise versus performance. The government is now two months and two weeks old, and I would say to my friends the member for Cochrane South and the member for Victoria-Haliburton simply this. It could not have been clearer to members of this Legislature and to the community beyond what the stated NDP policy was with respect to British Gas takeover of Consumers Gas, Varity moving to the United States, the funding of food banks, the establishment of a commission to equalize gas prices on a province-wide basis. I only make this observation. In those four areas, and those are ones that just come to mind quickly, they appear to have fed one thing over the years in opposition and in 10 weeks in government to have done precisely the opposite of that which they said they would do, admittedly for some perhaps very good reasons.

I am only going to judge the government, however, by the NDP standard, which was that it would never do that. I accept what they are saying about gas prices now. My only problem is that that is not ever what they said over the decades when they were in opposition. I would say to my friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton that I know he has had many associations and I know the party has had associations that may not be, in the first instance, mine.

Can I be really mischievous? I will. The member for Victoria-Haliburton I know has had several associations. I well remember in 1977 when he and I campaigned together under the Liberal standard and he ran against the sainted icon of democratic socialism, the late, great James Renwick. Has he had associations that are more colourful and varied than I? Yes, and the history and record affirm it.

Mr Phillips: I would like to join the debate briefly. We have heard from my colleague, I think, some problems for the future; but I guess what I want to do is just spell out a more optimistic note, at least about this year, and to say that things may not be as bad as the government benches feel.

I know the Treasurer, when he brought forward his first look at the budget, I think it was on 11 October, indicated that it seemed we may be looking at a $2.5-billion deficit. It is my hope that things will not be that bad. I recognize that the government will continue to need the funds that are spelled out in Bill 9, but the $2.5-billion deficit the Treasurer identified on 11 October was really made up of two things. One was an estimate that the revenue shortfall over the original estimates would be about $1 billion. Again, just to make the back bench feel a little more comfortable, I hope, it does not look like it is going to be a billion-dollar shortfall in revenue now.

My experience over the last three years is that as we get towards the end of the fiscal year, we are going to find, particularly from the federal government, the revenue estimates going up. So while I realize the $2.5 billion looks bleak to the members, keep an eye on it, because my judgement is -- and the Treasurer obviously will see it unfold over the next three and a half months -- that the revenue shortfall will not be the $1 billion that is predicted. It is my hope that it is substantially less than that. So I am just saying that the $2.5-billion deficit may not be there. I hope it is a lot less so that the government will have a better base on which to work going into next year.

On the expenditure side, I guess there are two big expenditures in the estimates the Treasurer presented on 11 October that I would watch. One was a $300-million estimate for SkyDome expenditures. We will see over the next few months how that will unfold. I hope and suspect it will be considerably less than that. In his estimates there was, I believe, a $400-million estimate for Urban Transport Development Corp. I hope it too will be considerably less than that.

The third thing I would say to government members is that as they approach the year-end they will find ministries' budget estimates actually dropping. Again, I hope they will find that the expenditure level will not be as high as they originally felt.

The reason I raise all of this is that I realize the $2.5-billion deficit is one that must be discussed at caucus frequently, and I just wanted to tell them to watch, because I think it may be a lot better than the original estimates indicated. On the revenue side, as I say, the Treasurer took his original look at it and felt the revenues would be down $1 billion. Watch it, because I think that by the year-end that will have substantially narrowed. This is good news for them, by the way. The second thing is on the expenditure side. UTDC and SkyDome both, I think, will be less than the Treasurer estimated. I realize he was only in the job a week and a half and had to make estimates, but I think it will be better than that. The third thing is that as your ministries finalize this year's expenditures, I think many of them will be less than the estimates.

The reason for spelling all of this out is that the $2.5-billion deficit which is perhaps inhibiting the government's thinking about this year's fiscal plan -- I would watch it. Watch it versus the estimates that the Treasurer provided 11 October. As the revenues go up and some of the expenditure estimates go down, I think the government will head into next fiscal year in a lot better shape than it thought. That does not detract from the fact that next year is going to be a challenging year. It does not detract from the need to pass this bill to ensure that they do have access to the financing they will require, although my hope is that they will need less financing than this bill proposes. Certainly the Provincial Auditor suggested that the pre-flowing of funds, which has historically been done for many years, may not be an appropriate use of funds for the future. That is another thing I think will inhibit the government's expenditures in terms of this year into next year.

The reason for joining the debate is, I think, good news for the government perspective, that the $2.5-billion deficit that was originally estimated I hope will be less for the three reasons I have outlined. I think for the government it will mean it will head into next fiscal year in better shape than it had expected. For this bill, I hope it means they will have to borrow less and therefore, of course, save the taxpayers' funds.

We will watch it as it unfolds over the next few months. It probably will not be clear to all of us until the year-end and the Treasurer presents his new budget; I think he announced he is presenting that in April. Then we can take a good look at that deficit for this year. Certainly, versus the estimate of 11 October, I now see some areas where I think things will be better than the Treasurer felt on 11 October, and as I say, that is good news for the government.

1720

The Deputy Speaker: Is there any further debate? Can we wait for the minister for a few minutes?

Hon Mr Laughren: I apologize for my temporary absence and for the delay it has caused. I appreciate the patience of members. I must say that I did listen to the debate as carefully as I could this afternoon. I appreciated the contribution from all members.

The member for St Catharines was quite right when he laid out the options that a government has at a time of recession and deficits that we are facing. He said, plain and simply, "You can tax, you can cut or you can borrow." It seems to me pretty elementary.

Mr Conway: And the third option is just taxation by another name.

Hon Mr Laughren: That is right. Of course, we will be doing all three. It surely is not either/or, although I must say that when I listened to the member for Etobicoke West, there is only one solution, it seems to me, in his mind. That is simply to cut expenditures, and he talked about the private sector being the only solution. I want to say that while I understand that in a recession if the private sector has to lay off people because of declining sales, whatever, then it does that. I understand it; but to be fair, to complete the equation, when those people are laid off and they run out of unemployment insurance benefits they come to the public sector to collect their social assistance payments, which this year will be $500 million higher than anybody thought they would be when the budget was brought down last spring. So it is not fair to simply say that the private sector is a solution. They can also be part of the problem.

I am not criticizing the private sector, because it simply has to be able to survive in a competitive market, but all I am saying is let's be fair about the results of some of the actions that the private sector takes from time to time. Even though it may be inevitable, the public sector still picks up a part of the problem that is then created. So we should not be so simplistic as to say that all governments have to do is cut back, just like the private sector does, and use that model totally. What would be the quality of life in this province if whenever we were into a recession the public sector cut back and laid off employees and cut programs in a very dramatic, if not draconian, way? I can say it would be an unhappy province.

I am not suggesting that most members would agree with that, but when I hear a member, the critic from the Conservative caucus, saying that is what he would do, I worry a great deal about the quality of life in this province. I think we have worked too hard building up that infrastructure and social safety net in this province to see it go down the tube because of what we all believe to be -- I think we all believe -- a temporary and relatively shallow recession.

I would hate to overreact either way. I would hate to overreact with huge expenditure programs to get us out of what we think is going to be a shallow and short-lived recession. At the same time, I would hate to overreact by cutting programs because of our declining revenues to government. I think there does need to be a balance. The only thing I regret is that the member for Etobicoke West did not seem to be prepared to recognize that there is a balance, and there is a role for government to make sure that when a recession does occur --

Mr Elston: Whoops. What was that word? The D-word slipped in there.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I do not think anybody wants to even imply that we are in a depression. I have not heard anybody say that except -- anyway, I will not say it. But the fact is that we are in a recession that the experts believe will be short-lived and that we will come out of some time in 1991.

I think the answer is not the CBC answer that the federal government imposed on the country by massive cutbacks all across this land. The member for Etobicoke West, the Conservative critic, argued that the sales tax should be cut four points. He would cut the sales tax four percentage points and cost the province revenues of about $4 billion. Does he really believe that if he cuts the sales tax from 8% to 4% there will be so much economic activity that the revenues coming in will be more than $4 billion in a fiscal year? I find it hard to believe that he would accept that.

Mr Sutherland: What about the interest rate question?

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, what about the interest rate question? The member for Etobicoke West quite conveniently skipped over the problem of interest rates.

I think it is simply not appropriate for members to stand in their place and say there is one easy answer to coping with the recession. I happen to think that our response of a $700-million anti-recession package was most moderate. It did not overreact to recession; on the other hand, it did not say we cannot do anything about it, it is here, we are just going to let it happen. I think that too would have been inappropriate.

I think if members are being fairminded, they will admit that out there the private sector has acknowledged that our response has been reasonable and moderate. I have not heard even the private sector say we are spending too much money in order to cope with the recession. I happen to think they are right.

The member for Hamilton Centre reinforced our belief -- he is my parliamentary assistant and I am glad he is on side, because he is a very independent-minded fellow and it is not a given that he is on side simply because he is my parliamentary assistant. He reinforced the point that we do want to spend this money carefully. This is not simply a slush fund that we are going to throw around and spend in a foolish way. He is quite right that we are going to work very hard to make sure we spend this money properly.

We did look, and are still looking very carefully. at where that money is spent, what parts of the province it is spent in, and what sectors need the support most. We really believe that the public infrastructure will benefit from this and that it puts us in a better place, as we come out of the recession, to get into recovery, to cope with the recovery and to enjoy the benefits that flow from any kind of recovery.

I must say, when the member for Renfrew North spoke, he was, as always, articulate, reflective and not ungenerous. However, he did make me somewhat depressed. I was almost depressed by the time the member for Renfrew North sat down. He sounded depressed. He sounded as though we had a hopeless case on our hands, that we had made all these promises and we had all these financial difficulties and that we could not possibly bring the two together.

That basically was what the member for Renfrew North was saying: "You've made all these promises. They're very expensive, they're big-ticket items, and you're in a recession and you've got a financial problem. How can you possibly weld these two? How can you have a happy marriage between the promises you made and the financial situation in which we now find ourselves?"

The member from Renfrew North talked about our promises on gasoline prices, our promises on four-laning highways, the northern development fund, our energy policy, the big-ticket items on education -- very big-ticket items on education, going to 60% support from the province as opposed to 60% at the municipal level -- the doctors' settlement: I will not repeat all the arguments of the member for Renfew North.

I would, however, say to the member for Renfrew North that unlike him, the people of Ontario are very reasonable in their expectations. Since we were sworn in, the message I am getting out there from people -- the business community, individuals, my own constituents -- is: "Don't do anything rash. We understand we're in a recession, and the worst thing you can do is think you can simply spend your way out of it."

When people say that to me, I believe they understand that that means we cannot take that Agenda for People and implement it this year and next. I believe that people understand that. I do not think there is anything magical about that or mystical about it. I think that people are very reasonable.

I think the member for Renfrew North is trying to get people to think we are in an impossible situation and that the government cannot possibly cope with its promises and the recession at the same time. I want to tell the member for Renfrew North to watch us; we can indeed cope with the recession and we will indeed implement our promises.

1730

Mr Conway: But after Varity you know why I'm concerned.

Hon Mr Laughren: Never mind Varity. The basic premise of the argument from the member for Renfrew North is that everything has to be done right now. People in the province do not want us to do everything right now. They understand, perhaps better than the member for Renfrew North, that we have got to be reasonable. We cannot rush ahead. We are in a recession. We intend to spend judiciously and we intend to tax prudently, all within a framework of fiscal responsibility.

I can remember when we formed the accord with the Liberal Party back in 1985. When we were putting our demands in front of the Liberals as to what we expected if we were going to support them in government, they insisted that at the end of almost every paragraph there had to be a statement that said, "all within a framework of fiscal responsibility." So I know that they now would not expect us to do otherwise when we are in government. I know that the member for Renfrew North, being a fairminded person, will expect us to do that too.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Because we are social democrats, socialists even, for heaven's sake, what kind of assumption is the member making about us and our spending priorities and habits?

I want to tell the member for Renfrew North that we spent too long in opposition and too long criticizing governments to do anything now in a foolish or haphazard way. We intend to govern with much prudence. I am sure that four or five years from now, the member for Renfrew North is going to sit back and say: "I don't know how those rascals did it. They had a recession, they had a lot of promises, but damn it, they gave us good government." That is what they are going to say.

I really believe at the end of our mandate -- it will be hard for the opposition members to say this, because their role is as honourable members of the opposition; it is Her Majesty's loyal opposition, after all and I think they will have trouble saying it -- but I believe the people of Ontario will say, "They came in in tough times, but they did the best they could and they always had our interests at heart."

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MANITOULIN. BARRIE AND COCKBURN ISLANDS LAND ACT, 1990

Mr Wildman moved second reading of Bill 15, An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island.

Hon Mr Wildman: I am very pleased to be able to introduce for second reading Bill 15. This bill enables the province to implement that part of the province's obligations that deal with land under the agreement that was finally signed in the first week of December with five first nations on Manitoulin Island.

The government will be transferring land to the first nations that signed the Manitoulin Island land claim agreement. I am proud to be involved with this first agreement signed by this government. As I paid tribute to the member for St George-St David at the time I made the statement in the House about this bill at first reading, I want to reiterate that the work that he did as the former minister responsible for native affairs helped to bring about this agreement. I want to pay tribute to him again for the work that he did.

I also want to pay tribute to the staff of the Ontario native affairs directorate. as it used to be called. or now the secretariat, particularly the work of Mark Stevenson, who worked long and hard to help bring about this settlement. It was not easy.

The settlement that this bill will be helping to implement resolves situations that have been outstanding for 128 years in this province. As we said at the time of first reading, this is the first time that Ontario has settled an outstanding native claim without the participation of the federal government of Canada.

I think that this is a historic occasion for us to be dealing with this bill. I think it is important for all of us in the House to recognize not only the work that was done by my predecessor but the work that had to be done subsequent to July. As many will know, there were some difficulties in implementing the agreement because of the situation related to the South Bay West band.

This was a first nation which amalgamated with the Wikwemikong first nation in the 1940s, I believe, and which would have been party to this agreement had it been a separate, standing-alone first nation today. There are a number of descendants of that first nation who live on Wikwemikong, and it was originally planned and anticipated that the Wikwemikong first nation would sign this agreement on behalf of those members of their first nation who are descendants of the South Bay West band.

Many will know that the first nation of Wikwemikong is a very proud first nation that has never signed any land settlements or agreements or treaties and for that reason, among others, it was found that the members of the Wikwemikong first nation did not wish to participate directly or indirectly in this settlement.

The suggestion then was made that one of the ways that we could resolve this problem, and the work that was done from July until we finally were able to get a final settlement, was that, of the moneys that would be transferred, besides the lands referred to in the bill here, part would be set aside in a trust fund which would be held for the members of the South Bay West first nation who are living at Wikwemikong and members of that first nation now, if at some future date they wished to settle. That made it possible for us to deal with the financial side.

This bill now deals with the approximately $2 million worth of land that is to be dealt with in the settlement. This land will be transferred to and returned to the five first nations that have signed this agreement. The other lands, of course, will be transferred to municipalities and some will be held by the crown in the right of Ontario.

The bill has a number of schedules attached, which will set out the boundaries of the lands in question. They give the legal descriptions so that we know exactly what lands are dealt with for each of the various bands: the Cockburn Island band, the Sheshegwaning band, the Sheguiandah band, the West Bay band and the Sucker Creek band.

I am proud today to be able to participate in this debate and I would ask all members of the House to join with me in supporting this legislation which implements a historic land claims agreement, one that I believe will be a first step to dealing with many grievances of first nations across this province and that will be an example of how we can resolve a number of claims that are of similar type that deal with surrendered lands that were never compensated for properly and dealing with boundaries and setting boundaries that are acceptable to the first nations.

1740

I am proud to have been part of this historic agreement and I look forward to new agreements patterned after this, as I said, so that we can finally deal on an equal basis in resolving land claims in this province and ensure that we can expedite the resolution of problems that have plagued the relationship between those of us of European extraction and those of us who are first nation peoples in this province.

Again, I would like to thank the members who participated up to now in the support for this bill. I know my friend the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has been very much in support of this settlement and again I pay tribute to the member for St George-St David for the work he did.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to participate in this debate and I am pleased to say that my party supports this initiative. It is a very significant initiative in that it is the first claim that has been negotiated solely by the province and it is also the first claim negotiated under the 1986 federal Indian lands agreement. The only difficulty with the process has been that one band has not been included. We look forward to the settlement that we hope will ultimately take place with the South Bay West band.

Dealing with native problems we have heard, and it has been categorically identified on numerous occasions by the government, of all of the problems that natives have. We have heard countless times the issues that exist in so far as our first nations are concerned. In categorizing all of the problems, we understand very deeply and profoundly the difficulties that exist in so far as the way our first nations live is concerned. I think it is going to be incumbent upon this government to stop just identifying issues and to start laying out a concrete plan dealing with how the problems that our first nations face are to be solved.

We know that one major issue is the issue of native self-government. There are prototypes that now exist that are going a long way towards solving that problem. We have the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and that is a very significant settlement of the native self-government situation in so far as that British Columbia band is concerned. We also have in Ontario proposals such as the proposal coming from the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin that are unique. They are proposals that will go a long way to developing a methodology suited for each individual band to solve that problem.

We also have other significant issues and they have been identified. We have issues dealing with native housing. If we think the problem with apartments is a crisis, the problems that natives have with regard to housing is truly a crisis. We have natives who, because they live on reserves, cannot own the land or offer their land as security so that they can obtain loans and build proper housing.

We have problems off the reserve, where natives are spending in excess of 30% of their income on housing, and we have a great problem with the fact that native housing, by and large, is housing that is overcrowded. It is in many cases unsanitary and far below the standards that we in this House would deem proper.

The Premier was quoted as saying that the relationship of Canada's first citizens and the rest of the population is one of the great unresolved issues of our time. It is unconscionable for our province to continue with a situation where the condition of life for native people is taken for granted. Again, the problems are identified. It is time that we started to see what the solutions are.

In the area of native health care, we have problems where the provincial government must enter into discussions with the first nations. They must do it now so that the first nations will have things we take for granted: running water, sewage treatment, garbage disposal, adequate housing, ambulance service, care for elders, midwifery service, education in preventive programs and programs to deal with family violence, mental health and substance abuse, which would include the provision of accessible crisis centres. All of these things that we take for granted as part and parcel of the day-to-day programs that we talk about here are not available the way they should be, and it is incumbent upon this government, now that it has identified the problems, to come up with a package and tell us the way it wishes to solve these problems.

The other area of very major concern to natives is native education. We all know that there are schools on Indian reserves, but that is where the native education process stops. We do not have and we have not developed the secondary level. We have not developed any move towards boards of education that control the education process for natives. It is incumbent upon this government to act in those areas.

In closing, I am going to refer to a speech delivered by the Ombudsman. She gave this speech in Halifax, I believe it was in September. She stated that it is urgent that all people of this land engage in a sincere search for solutions to issues involving the first nations.

She goes on to say that given that most Canadians have been taught for generations that aboriginal peoples should be grateful for having been given the gifts of civilization and being taken care of by the government, it is no wonder that many Canadians cannot understand why aboriginal peoples seem to be behaving in such an ungrateful and lawless manner. There is a basic misunderstanding about the difficulties that natives face, and it is incumbent on the government to begin the dialogue and to lay out the program so that we all understand where we are going on this very sensitive and important issue.

The Ombudsman also stated that while recognizing the need for private discussions, there was also the need for independent monitoring and exposing the state of negotiations to public scrutiny. It is incumbent on this government not just to go from band to band and spend money, hopefully to help the situation of natives. It is incumbent upon the government to lay out the plan to solve some of these problems, to make that plan known to the citizens of this province so that they can understand and participate in solving the very grave problems that many of our first nations are suffering from.

Hon Mr Wildman: I will say more when I am closing the debate, but I want to respond just briefly to my friend. I want to agree with him that it is incumbent upon us as a government to develop a strategy and an approach and to lay it out to the public. But I want to emphasize from the bottom of my heart that we as a government, or all of us assembled as a Legislature, cannot decide unilaterally what the approach will be.

This current state of affairs for native people in this country is largely if not wholly the response to the fact that the people of this country, non-natives, have been deciding for 300 years what is good for native people. It is time we let the native people make their own decisions and, frankly, make their own mistakes.

1750

Mr Brown: I stand with pride because this historic agreement was achieved on Manitoulin, was achieved in the communities that I represent. If I might take a moment, I would say that while we are talking about the benefit to the first nations of Manitoulin, we are also talking about the benefit to the municipalities and the people who are not members of the first nations of Manitoulin.

There is significant benefit for all in this agreement. It provides for our municipalities the opportunity for development, because the land that was under a cloud of title is now free to be used for development. I think that is significant to my constituents and to the province of Ontario.

This agreement was not easy to come by. This agreement has taken a long time -- as the minister says, 128 years -- to resolve. But in more recent history, I believe the interest in this particular issue began in the late 1970s and continued until 1985 or 1986 -- I am not sure of the exact year -- when the first nations took up the cause. To the credit, I think, of our government, we also entered into negotiations and for the first time -- I think this is terribly significant -- we managed to settle a land claim.

But it has not been easy. I remember the warm July day not very long ago, at a beautiful setting on the reserve at Sucker Creek, there were literally hundreds of people, both of our first nations and others, assembled for the historic signing. The then Attorney General was there to sign on behalf of Ontario and so were the five chiefs. They were there to sign and we had a little bit of difficulty in beginning the ceremony. My friend the chief of the Wikwemikong band, Chief Al Shawana, came to us and said: "I can't sign this agreement. My band council has endorsed it, but there seems to be a growing concern within the community that there are some problems. There certainly was no unanimity."

The South Bay West band, as the minister has alluded to, was in a difficult situation in that it had signed the agreement while the Wikwemikong band had proudly upheld its tradition of never signing an agreement, and Chief Shawana was in a very difficult situation. He undertook to go back and have consultations with the members of Wikwemikong, and he did that. The signing was put off or at least the Wikwemikong signature was put off until the time the band could come to some resolution.

I am very pleased that this government and the minister, who has taken for a very long time a deep interest in the people of our first nations, were able to come to an agreement with the five first nations on Manitoulin and to find a way to make this work. I commend the minister and his staff for their efforts. I know it has been a difficult resolution.

But while we may stand here patting ourselves on the back, I think the people who really deserve some credit in this situation are the chiefs of the bands who signed and their predecessors; all have worked very hard. I was pleased that just last Wednesday they were here in the gallery. I think I would like to mention them if for no other reason than to help the minister's pronunciation: Patrick Madahbee of Sucker Creek, Chief Max Assinewai of Sheguiandah, Chief Stewart Roy of West Bay, Chief Norma Fox Wagosh of Cockburn Island and Chief Joe Endenawas of Sheshegwaning. They were here.

I should tell the House also the story that this agreement has been so difficult to achieve that even the weather conspired against us. A week ago Monday morning, I was at the airport in Gore Bay. When I arrived to take a norOntair flight, I found that the chiefs were there and other members of the first nations. They said: "Well, Mike, why don't you just come with us? We have an MNR aircraft. We'll fly to Toronto. It'll save you some time. It makes sense." I said, "Yes, I'll do that." We got up and we flew to Wiarton and turned around, although I did not know we were in Wiarton; no one did. The pilot announced after flying for about an hour that, "In 10 minutes we'll arrive in Gore Bay." So even the weather was conspiring, and on the day of the signing we also had a bit of transportation difficulty.

I think everyone was wondering whether this would happen. Nevertheless it did happen. It is a proud day for the first nations and I think a proud day for Ontario and for Canada that we have settled a land claim. The significance of that I do not think should be lost on this Legislature. The challenge will be to settle more and to settle them more quickly, but this is not going to be easy. It is going to be a difficult situation. The first nations have their point of view and, as the minister suggested, what we have to do is really enter into a dialogue with the first nations and understand and then let them set the agenda rather than us.

I think that is really very important. If we do that, then we will succeed in settling the Wikwemikong land claim, for example, which is now before the ministry, perhaps the one at Whitefish Falls, a reserve. There are numerous ones in my constituency and, I know, all across the province. The key to this is to talk to the peoples of the first nations to let them set the agenda and to respond appropriately.

Ontario is not alone in this. Ontario can only move, in many cases, as fast as the federal government will allow, and that may be the rub. The minister has a difficult job, perhaps, of being an advocate with the federal government on behalf of the first nations to move this process along. One of the sad things about this claim is that the federal government did not participate. The claim against the government of Canada is still outstanding and still will be pursued, so there are problems.

I would like the House also to know at this time about another treaty that was signed. Approximately two months ago the people of Manitoulin, as represented through their municipalities, and the first nations of Manitoulin signed a friendship treaty at Gore Bay. It was interesting to note that they said no politicians could come to the signing. I do not know what "politicians" necessarily are by definition, but it meant no provincial or federal politicians, because municipalities have great politicians and certainly the first nations do.

None the less, in a spirit of harmony that has existed on Manitoulin, and for sure through most of this province, we have managed to have a harmonious relationship between the first peoples and the rest of the people. That is to continue, so obviously our party will be supporting this measure. I have but one small concern, and that is the schedules. I know my lawyer friends who drew these up would be also concerned, because they worked very many hours to make sure the land descriptions were right. I presume they are. I hope they are.

1800

Hon Mr Wildman: There are some small amendments.

Mr Brown: The minister says we already have amendments. Anyway, I just wanted to indicate to this House our support for the government, how it followed an initiative taken by the former minister responsible for native affairs, and how we will continue to support and indeed encourage the government to move forward to bigger and better things.

Mrs McLeod: I too just want to take a very brief moment of the time of the House to recognize the significance of the act that is before us today and the agreement that was signed. I have on two occasions now noted and appreciated the graciousness with which the minister responsible for native affairs has recognized the work of his predecessor in beginning the negotiations on longstanding land claims and carrying this one to the point of the interim settlement, and to congratulate him as well on continuing with that to the fruition that it now sees.

The new minister will now be aware that there are a number of those negotiations under way, as a result of the very real commitment of his predecessor, to address the long-standing land claims that had failed to really be addressed in a meaningful way over such a long period of time. He will know how much satisfaction all of us take in seeing one of these negotiations reach a conclusion without resort to the courts.

I think I would like to put the significance of this in the context of the frustration all of us felt this summer -- native and non-native alike across this country -- when we watched the Oka situation reach a point of such confrontation that troops had to be called in.

People from northern Ontario perhaps were particularly aware of the reaction that was provoked, because there was such an absence of good-faith bargaining to resolve that particular situation. We are all aware that that kind of good-faith bargaining takes a genuine desire to recognize the legitimacy of the concerns of our native and aboriginal people and to sit down and address their concerns in a truly meaningful way with a sincere attempt to resolve them. If we do not have that kind of good-faith bargaining approach to dealing with the other land claims, to carrying on the negotiations which are currently under way and undertaking new ones, then I think we would all tragically see more Okas and more anger and more alienation.

I also want to note once again what the minister has noted in his presenting statement and what my colleague the member for Algoma-Manitoulin has noted in his comments. That is, that this is sadly a bilateral agreement and not a trilateral agreement. I think it reflects the fact that the federal government has not been able to participate in a meaningful way in the negotiations with our native peoples. I think the fact that they have not been able to participate in a meaningful way is a reflection, in turn, of the fact that they really do not have a sense of vision as to what must and can be done in order to address the concerns of aboriginal peoples.

So I would encourage the minister to continue with the leadership Ontario has provided -- leadership provided both by the leaders of our native communities and indeed by government -- but at the same time as we continue with that leadership and effort that Ontario is making that we continue to call on the federal government for truly meaningful participation in future negotiations, in this province and across the country.

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the members for their remarks. I want to recognize again the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his support of this agreement, and to agree with him that this is indeed a benefit certainly for the first nations of Manitoulin Island but also a benefit for all of the people of Manitoulin Island and for the municipalities. It gets rid of a lot of uncertainty and will make it possible for a new era of co-operation between the municipalities and first nation reserves and generally between the people of the first nations and the other people living in Manitoulin Island. It is a great tribute to all of the people of Manitoulin Island that not only were the chiefs of the first nations working hard to try to salvage the agreement when it looked like it might be threatened, but the leaders of the municipalities and the business community on Manitoulin Island were in support of this agreement and wanted it to go ahead and pressed the government for action to ensure that it did indeed go through to fruition.

I want to say generally, though, that I think it is not only a benefit to the people of Manitoulin Island -- it certainly is that -- but a benefit for all of the people of the province, if not Canada. I regret that the federal government has not been involved in this particular dispute and the settlement of it, in that now the people of the first nations will have to carry forth their claim to deal with the federal government. That may lead -- I hope not -- to litigation. I would hope this could be resolved.

It has been suggested that we as a government must lay out a program. We have identified problems and we must now be able to identify how we will respond to them. I accept that responsibility. I want to say sincerely that there are many serious social and economic problems plaguing first nation communities. As I said a few moments ago, governments in Canada have for too long felt they could resolve those problems, that if only they could hire more experts and put more money into research and into programs on reserves and off reserves, the problems that have plagued first nation peoples since the arrival of Europeans on these shores would be resolved. It has not worked. Despite all of the good intentions -- I am not in any way denigrating the intentions of many government, church and social leaders of our communities in the past -- it has not worked.

I will not delineate and go through all of the problems again today. There is a serious problem we all recognize with regard to the quality of life on reserves and off reserves for native people in Canada. The member for Willowdale mentioned that native people cannot own their houses on reserves, and that is true. They own their homes, but they do not own the land on which the home is built. That land is held collectively, because first nations people have a different value system compared to the European. Native people do not desire to own the land individually, to parcel out the land on reserves that has been held in reserve for them by the federal government. That is not what they consider to be the best way to deal with questions of property. Property is held to benefit the community. That does lead to problems with financial institutions, which are based on our approaches. There is no question about that. That is why we must find new ways to deal with questions of improvements to housing on reserve.

Particularly in the far northern reserves, but in all reserves in Ontario, there are not adequate water and sewer services. Many communities live in what are essentially Third World conditions. That is just not acceptable in Canada, in Ontario, one of the richest places in the world. We have talked about the need for improvements to health care. We have problems of mental health, problems of providing care to youth and the elderly, serious problems of substance abuse, serious problems of suicide among young men.

1810

Education on reserves and off reserves is a major issue, and we know that the federal government cut back on its obligations to native people under the treaties. That is just not acceptable. We, as a provincial government, are committed to meeting the responsibilities to improve the quality of life for native people across Canada. However, do not believe that the federal government should somehow shirk its fiduciary responsibility to the people of the first nations of Canada in this province. The federal government has a special responsibility, a special relationship, and it must live up to it.

I will just close by saying a couple of things. First, this government does not believe that we alone should set the agenda. We would prefer, obviously, to co-operate with the federal government, along with the first nations and aboriginal organizations in Ontario, to be able to set the agenda and set the priorities for land claims settlement, negotiating self-government agreements and improving the quality of life for native people in this province. We believe that both levels of government have a responsibility and the federal government indeed does have a special responsibility.

However, the Manitoulin land settlement is an example of what can be done if the federal government is unable or unwilling to meet its responsibilities. We are not going to wait for the federal government. We are not going to have the federal government set the agenda. If the federal government cannot participate, we will move forward if necessary on a bilateral basis with the people of the first nations and the aboriginal organizations in this province.

We recognize that it will not be easy. There are many, many land claims in this province to be resolved. We do believe that the Manitoulin settlement can be an example for a particular type of land claim on lands that have been surrendered but have not been compensated for. This is an example of what we can do together. We can negotiate land claims and resolve them, we can negotiate self-government agreements and perhaps that can move the agenda forward to a constitutional amendment on aboriginal rights for this whole country.

This is a proud day. I want to pay tribute to the chiefs and councils of the first nations. I want to pay tribute to the previous government and its commitment and to the people of Manitoulin Island. Together we can resolve grievances that have been standing far too long in this province and in this country. I am excited about the prospect, I am looking forward to it. Let's get on with it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I am happy to open the debate on the second bill that I have introduced into the Legislature. Hopefully it will not be as controversial as my first bill.

This bill, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, 1990, makes changes to the Ontario tax reduction program to give more income tax relief to low-income working families in Ontario that have children or disabled dependants.

These changes were announced by the former Treasurer in his budget of 24 April 1990. However, the previous government did not pass the necessary legislation to implement these changes. In the interest of fairness, we must now pass this bill quickly. Swift passage will ensure that those families benefit from the new rules when they file their returns for the 1990 taxation year.

I should explain that the bill also contains some administrative changes. It contains an amendment which clarifies the meaning of the term "minister" in the federal income tax legislation. I want to briefly review the bill for members of the House and refresh the memories of those who were here in the last Parliament.

Section 1 of the bill deals with the administrative amendment. Under the terms of the federal-provincial tax agreement, the federal government administers Ontario's personal income tax act. To ensure consistency in income tax administration, many provisions in the federal act also apply to Ontario income tax. Our legislation contains a table listing common words or expressions in the federal act together with their corresponding provincial replacements.

For example, the Department of National Revenue in the federal act is read as the Ministry of Revenue in the Ontario act. The bill will clarify that the term "minister" in the federal Income Tax Act means the Ontario Minister of Revenue in the context of the provincial Income Tax Act.

Section 2 of the bill is much more important and interesting for members of this House. It enriches tax relief for low-income families in Ontario. In addition to a basic Ontario tax reduction of $167, a low-income taxpayer will be eligible for a $200 supplement for each dependent child aged 18 or under. He or she will also receive a further $200 for each disabled dependant. The supplement amounts to $400 for a child with disabilities.

All these supplements are added up and the total personal amount reduces the Ontario income tax that would otherwise be paid. If the personal amount is greater than the income tax figure, then no income tax is payable. If the personal amount is less than the Ontario income tax, a formula is used to reduce the tax payable.

As a result of these changes, the income level where Ontario income tax becomes payable will increase. This is good news for low-income families. For example, under the current tax rules a single parent supporting two children starts to pay Ontario income tax at an income of about $14,000. If this bill is passed, that single parent would not pay Ontario income tax until an income level of about $18,000 has been reached. The former Treasurer projected that 115,000 families in Ontario might benefit from these changes when they were introduced last May.

I recognize that this bill will not solve all the problems of low-income working families in Ontario. This bill alone cannot deliver real tax fairness. My colleague the Treasurer will have the opportunity to announce more measures to help working families in Ontario when he presents his first budget, and the Fair Tax Commission will no doubt be recommending more comprehensive changes to make Ontario's tax system fair to everyone in the province.

However, this enrichment of the Ontario tax reduction program is a step in the right direction. I urge all members to support quick passage of this bill.

Mr Mills: I would just like to mention the benefits by numbers to the tax filers that this bill will do in the upcoming tax year. It will benefit 115,000 tax filers supporting up to 250,000 children and disabled dependants. Also, there are approximately 625,000 tax filers who will benefit from this in this year, 1990. I think in a time of recession, in a time when families are struggling to make ends meet, that this a commendable action. I support the bill and I thank the minister for bringing it forward on behalf of the constituents that I represent.

Mr Cousens: I am just concerned that while this bill in itself has a net benefit to certain people who are in definite need in the province of Ontario, I would like to have some clear idea of the total agenda that this government has on all the people of the province.

What they are really doing is dealing very piecemeal. I am not going to object to the way that this building block will fit into an overall plan that it may be part of, but I would like to have the whole spectrum of what the government is going to do, because I know there are some people across the province who are cringing at what it might do. They have come along and they have always had a bent to the left. Some of them are so far off the left that I do not think there is any room on the normal map for them.

1820

Notwithstanding that, the government owes it to the business community and to others within our society to have some sense of knowing how much it is going to be hitting them. It is one thing to be able to give and help those in need in our society, which we support, but it is another to come through and say, "Well now, how are we going to balance the books?" Are they going to take money from the very rich? There are some worries that they are going to take more and more. We are already one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in North America.

I would like the member, as a brand-new, energetic, keen minister of the government, to open up her agenda a little bit more to us rather than just sort of dealing piecemeal along the way. Then the minister will begin to restore some of the confidence that was lost on 6 September around 9:30 when people realized that the future of Ontario had for ever changed, and anyone who had any money or anyone who had any idea to invest in this province was thinking, "I had better flee out of here." So they were going to go down somewhere where it would be safe to protect their funds.

This minister really owes it to the province of Ontario and to all members of the Legislature that --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Thank you, the member for Markham. Further comments or questions?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would just like to say to the member for Markham that I have met with many members of the business community already and they are very interested and excited about having the Corporations Tax Act amended. So I am looking forward to having the member's support in that act also.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Bill 11 is very well intentioned. Indeed, 250,000 people and 115,000 families will benefit directly from its implementation. It could be classified as a more sophisticated method of support for those in greatest need in this province of Ontario.

I am particularly happy, as I think all of us are in this House, that this legislation provides supplements for children, and indeed additional supplements for children who have a disability. This is an improvement, and it complements, as the minister has just stated, the level at which a single working parent with two children will begin to pay Ontario income tax. An income now of $18,700 as opposed to $14,100.

However, I must say that I am more than surprised, I am shocked and I am certainly disappointed on two important counts. For everyone in this House today, particularly earlier in the debate today, we have acknowledged that we are in a recession. We do not know how deep that recession is going to become, and yet here we are presented with an initiative that was taken on 24 April 1990. In the debate that followed the release of that budget by the previous government, the present Treasurer was more than critical in his analysis and comment of this initiative at that time, a time that each member in this House knows was a much better time, a much more economically stable time.

As we approach this winter of 1990, and most of us think it will be a hard winter, we have Bill 11 being presented. In fact, Bill 11 is identical word for word, comma for comma to the tax reduction program that was introduced on 24 April 1990. At that time, I remind the House again, the economy was healthier.

Indeed, the person who is now the Treasurer of this province said on 25 April in the course of the budget debate:

"We think there is no reason for anyone below the poverty level to pay provincial income tax. We have costed that out. We think the cost of that is about $200 million.... That is not an outrageous amount in the province of Ontario, $200 million.... He could" -- the present Treasurer referring to the then Treasurer -- "remove everybody below the poverty level from paying income tax for $200 million."

How the Treasurer's thinking has changed as the reality of government has set in. Now today the Minister of Revenue continues in the same beginning tradition of this government of promises, promises, and I agree with the member for Markham: When will this agenda in its completeness give us some direction as to where we are going to help the poor of this province and indeed to lead the economic recovery of this province?

Bill 11, like Bill I that we have spent quite a bit of time debating, is but a small step by this new government, a government that has been given a new opportunity, a broad mandate by this province -- indeed, as the Premier says, the stewardship. This government, with that opportunity, is taking a very small step when giant moves could be made on behalf of the people of Ontario.

The people of Ontario expect better. They deserve better. The Premier has yet to keep his promise to those who are working at the minimum wage. The Premier has told the farmers to wait until spring for relief. The Premier has told the thousands of people forced out of work by bankruptcy to wait until spring or maybe later for the promises of the throne speech.

The Premier, however, has been able to help Victor Rice and his Varity Corp move to Buffalo, renege on commitments and take jobs with him. The Premier has been able to help the Reichmann brothers of Toronto sell Consumers Gas to foreign interests. But Premier Bob has told the poor to wait again in a time of need. He has told the farmers to wait. He has told the suddenly unemployed to wait, wait, wait out the long, hard winter of 1990.

The people across Ontario expect more and deserve more from the Premier, from the NDP government and from this Minister of Revenue in creative tax policy. We will not speak at length on this bill as we did on Bill 1. It is a good bill. It started as a Liberal initiative and it is the government's privilege, as I repeat, under its stewardship to have it carried out. But let them remember, the people across Ontario are expecting a great deal more from them in the months and years to come, if not right now.

The NDP, if I may remind the House, has proceeded with a number of Liberal initiatives this fall, for example, the government ministry relocations, the transportation plan for Metro, religion in the public schools and extension of the French-language school board. All of these were indeed just passed through.

We are pleased that the NDP has had the good judgement to continue on the course we began. But we are disappointed that after their very strong promises of fair taxes -- indeed, they used the words "fairer taxes" in the election campaign -- the New Democrats have not yet begun to honour their commitments, even though they have introduced into this house two tax bills. People across Ontario were expecting a great deal from this new government on taxation. In fact, it was one of their main platforms. How many times did the NDP demand that those working at the minimum wage should be exempt from paying Ontario income tax? Yet we get Bill 11. How many times did the Premier promise fair taxation? How many times did the Premier promise tax fairness?

Nobody expects miracles to be performed overnight. Nobody expects the NDP to complete its full Agenda for People before Christmas. But as the member for Markham said, when are we going to see some real reform, even indications that there will be real reform? People across this province expected a little bit more from the Premier, from our Treasurer and from the Minister of Revenue. But what have we got? Three months later and again tonight the Minister of Revenue promises, promises, promises. Not yet have we seen one kept, but we are being told to trust that promises will be fulfilled: some platitudes in the speech from the throne, some rumblings about establishing a Fair Tax Commission, some controversy surrounding the appointment of that commission, and not even half of the tax revolt that was promised on the GST. All of these facts aside, Bill 11 is likely going to pass as it is, a small step in a great time of need.

1830

Now I would like to focus my concern on the fact that many of the people this bill is intended to support may find that accessing these benefits is more than complex. The income tax form is certainly threatening. Just the first page -- if you look at the size of the print and the number of lines and figures, you have to go through four full pages, and then in the middle of the page, without any highlighting at all you have a little word, "Inquiries," and beside that, again not highlighted, in the same-size print, telephone numbers. It seems to me that this is not of one bit of assistance to the people who will be accessing this bill. I beg of the minister to consider making that fine print a lot bolder.

I strongly recommend that in implementing this taxation bill, the minister do everything in her power to make it possible for those people for whom it was designed to access it. If that is not completely done, I am afraid this bill will not achieve its purposes. I may suggest that the people who work in communities with the low-wage earner and indeed the industries that employ these people could help her in that endeavour.

It is essential that a strong communications program be put in place immediately, as this bill is going to take effect immediately, and that the recipients of this bill and those who work with them and for whom they work be given full knowledge and notification of this legislation. If this legislation is truly going to help the people it was designed to assist, it must be accessible. Indeed, that is one of the words this government likes to use about itself. I would have hoped, when I went for my briefing on this bill, to have seen a public relations-communications strategy presented. But when I asked the question, it looked as if it had never even been thought of, and that disturbed me greatly.

In closing, although this bill is a very small step, a very small bite in a great problem in this province for those in greatest need, the least this government can do is make this bill accessible to those it was going to help. I hope the minister will quickly develop the communications strategy I am suggesting and that Bill 11 will have as its policy a communications strategy that is second to none.

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to this bill. It is the kind of bill I think everyone will endorse and support. It is the kind of bill that would certainly help -- they mentioned, I believe, 225,000 separate tax filings or 115,000 families which will be affected by this. It is the kind of thing that is certainly accepted, but the difficulty I think we have with this particular bill is how it fits, as the member for Markham was suggesting, into the whole scheme of the ideology or approach to the concerns of the residents and the economic factors and the recession and all those things the Treasurer spoke of earlier.

Where does this process fit in with respect to that? Is this the first block in a series of blocks that is going to build our way out of this difficulty we are in? Is it a block that is going to affect a great number of people across this province so they will have more disposable income, maybe a higher standard of living, etc?

It just appears to be a piece of legislation that was sitting on the desk of the minister after the Liberals left, so she picked it up and said: "My goodness, this is interesting. Let's table it." That appears to have happened. They have tabled it and it is here. I was expecting a long discourse from the minister outlining exactly how this is going to be one of a number of building blocks, amendments to the Income Tax Act that will in effect change the course of history in Ontario so we may now see the true NDP and their platforms and policies. But apparently not; this is just something she found and now we get to read it today.

I think the critic for the Liberal Party was quite correct in suggesting that it really does not appear that there is a process or program available to this House to review and see how this is going to kick off this new economic revival promised to us from this labour party if it is obviously not.

One can review the Agenda for People and try to follow through exactly where this will fit in with their other commitments. Apparently, we are not going to see a -- was it a flurry of legislation before Christmas?

An hon member: Blizzard.

Mr Stockwell: That is it, a blizzard of legislation before Christmas. I should tell the folks not to worry and not to get their shovels out. It is just not as bad as we thought it would be. It was just a warm front passing by, apparently. This blizzard of legislation has barely been a trickle. In fact, I do not even think I will have to go up and empty the eavestroughs on this one. It does not seem to be occurring, and it is disappointing.

I am disappointed because I thought this government, once elected, would establish and mark out its philosophical territory. Some of the first pieces of legislation to come before this House, I thought, would be something we could get our teeth into, to understand where they are going. The people of the province could really understand exactly what they elected. But basically, we hear from this minister and others vague responses surrounding the Agenda for People that have absolutely no bearing on what they said in the election. It is very frustrating, not only for members in the House here but it must be frustrating for the backbenchers in the NDP caucus, it must be frustrating for the supporters out there who work so hard for this labour movement that got elected.

Having seen this bill that has been put forward, which includes somewhere in the neighbourhood of $44 million in adjustments and so on, it certainly leaves me with the impression that maybe they have rethought their strategy. In the Agenda for People, their strategy was clear, concise, simple and to the point.

Mr Jackson: What is simple?

Mr Stockwell: They have cornered the market on simple, as well as compassion, they claim, but it is certainly not anything they have brought forward to this House. There is no mention of a lot of these programs. Any programs the government has addressed has been done in such a watered-down version of what it had written in the Agenda for People. It is laughable, absolutely laughable. The government would be drummed out of the city of Toronto council if it called itself NDP. They would not have them there. The government is not NDP; they would call it Liberal. If they passed this to the city of Toronto council, this bit of pap, they would be drummed out. Jack Layton and the folks would get together and drum them out.

What we get here today is a combination of Liberal and NDP clothing. That is what we are dealing with today. Bill 11 is the perfect example, one of the best pieces of legislation they can come up with, and what are we talking about? We are talking about $44-million adjustments in application of the tax.

1840

It seems to me that our blizzard has not occurred. We would be interested to see when the blizzard is going to happen. We would be really interested to see when the Agenda for People is going to be instituted. We get vague promises and vaguer answers from the ministers, including the Minister of Labour, who is minister of vague, I suppose. I do not think there is anything he has answered that would be even remotely close to this agenda they all signed. There are other words I can use, but I decided they are unparliamentary.

We will support Bill 11. We will accept the fact that there must be a game plan, although no one knows the game plan. I do not think anyone on that side of the House knows the game plan. There must be a game plan kept in the Premier's house somewhere and he is going to pull it out in the new year and tell everybody. I think the Minister of the Environment is really interested in what the game plan is, because soon we are going to have to tie her down if she continues with these Peter Pan ideas about landfill sites, because she is floating away.

And now comes the Income Tax Act, this plank they ran on. Realizing that there are flaws in the income tax, they told the people: "We'll fight for you and make those pay who should be paying. The poor shouldn't be paying all this money." What do we get? This little two-page bit of nothingness that was left over from the Liberal government.

We will endorse it. We are still curious about when they are going to come out with something substantive. We are really curious about when they are going to do anything -- it would be kind of neat to find out -- and when finally they could all keep their Agenda for People. Maybe a couple of these ideas they would like to institute, because I know the few people who voted NDP in my riding -- very few, mind you -- would be really interested in seeing when they are going to do something substantive.

Mr Hope: As usual, we hear support but we hear opposition to the bill. To those families who are in that range, who bring that kind of money home, this is something that is of importance. We talked about the number of children involved, 250,000, who will have some kind of recourse to getting maybe a decent piece of food on their table. That is more important than anything, and what we are trying to do is encourage and build a foundation.

It reminds me of a horse race. They have blinders on and cannot see past the blinders. It is important that there is a foundation-laying. If we had walked in here and the Treasurer had put out a great, big agenda for people right off, I suppose most of the people of Ontario would have had a heart attack. They are telling us in our communities to just take it easy and implement things slowly because there is a recession, that we must do things in a progressive way instead of an overreacting way.

It is good to see that the opposition parties still have the Agenda for People in their hands, because in four and a half years they will probably forget about it and not refer to it any more, because probably the Agenda for People will be fulfilled and they will start to wonder, they will have to find some new excuse. It is good to see that they do carry it around, and I am proud they do.

In comments made about the people who are affected by this legislation, we talked about the forms that were produced. Yes, there have been a lot of people who have not known about benefits provided for them, and it is going to be our obligation and I know it is my obligation to make sure my constituents know that small print is there, it is for their protection, and it is for them to fill it out. My constituency will see it and will know about it. I do not need somebody else to communicate for me.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I, too, am awaiting. I want to read from the Agenda for People, from page 1: "We are proposing that individuals or families living at or below the poverty line should not pay Ontario income tax." The incomes the minister and I referred to today are at or below the poverty line. "The cost of this move for the current tax year is estimated at $200 million," exactly what was said on 25 April. The facts seem to be the same as the member for Etobicoke West has said, but the activity to respond to these seems to be very different from what we have heard from this government and throughout this entire year, whether the members were in opposition or running to become government.

This is very disturbing. I hope the Minister of Revenue is listening very closely. She needs a plan. Taxation is certainly one important way in which we could get this province on the rails. Certainly it is one of the most important ways in which we could get the poor back into the mainstream. Economic recession is affecting everybody but it is mostly affecting the poor. I hope there will be some creative tax reform that will stimulate this economy again and will help those in most need.

Mr Stockwell: When is the government going to get tired of giving us this pap that it is going to institute this stuff in due course? They are not going to institute this stuff. I think their Treasurer has been very clear. Read the Agenda for People. Interest rate relief: Where is that? We are in the middle of a recession. Where is the business interest rate relief? Where is the special interest rate for homes? This is from the government's Agenda for People: small business assistance, driver-owned insurance. job protection, training and adjustment, minimum wage, pay equity, child care, employment equity, poverty. It took a whole page to go on poverty. Rent controls: They have already backtracked with their moratorium.

They keep saying: "We'll do it in the fullness of time. We don't want to institute this right away because people in Ontario would have heart attacks." This is craziness. The government ran on this document. They spoke to the people, they made promises they are not even remotely prepared to keep, that they know they cannot keep. The Minister of Labour knows he cannot keep his promises. The Minister of the Environment publicly has admitted she could not keep some of her promises. The Treasurer has stated, "We will not have all the money for all the promises we made."

Do not give me this, "We are going to fulfil the Agenda for People." Do not tell me about building planks. They have built nothing. They have brought forward Bill 11. Although I understand that certain families are affected, and it is good to see, that is not a plank to rebuild this economy. It is not servicing the people they are suggesting they are servicing. They continue to ply this pap, this left-wing pap, and I guess I am getting sick of it.

Did they write this for any reason other than to get elected? I guess that is the real question. Apparently not, because all they have done is say, "We can't fulfil the promises we made." And remember what their Premier said about Mr Peterson last election, when he did not fulfil his promises. Maybe they should be calling him the same thing.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I know everybody over there understands. I feel I would just like to talk and be on TV; I do not know.

Under the Canada-Ontario tax collection agreement for personal income tax, Ontario has an obligation to keep its legislation in line with the 1990 budget that was proposed. The federal computer systems and returns for 1990, which are to be mailed to Ontario taxpayers later this month, have been established on the basis of the 1990 budget. To deliver this relief the bill must be approved quickly.

The Treasurer's policy for 1991 on personal income tax will be revealed in his 1991 budget. The whole plan of the government will be announced by the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, in his 1991 budget. I am aware that the people of Ontario expect more from the NDP government. That is because the people of Ontario, all the people of Ontario, know that the NDP government will listen to all of the people of Ontario and not just some of the people of Ontario.

The tax policy will be creative and the tax policy will be fair. Our Fair Tax Commission will be that. I will make it possible for those for whom it was designed to be aware of this tax policy change. People -- MPPs, MPs -- will get notices in their constituency offices. Any social agencies that are on the mailing list, which is most of the social agencies in the provinces, do get notices of there being a change in the tax system and are concerned about the individuals who will be getting this, concerned; they will be getting notices and talking to the people.

Interjections.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I hope the members opposite are all just as excited and rambunctious when we fulfil our Agenda for People and we win the next provincial election so we can get on with part 2 of the Agenda for People.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

1850

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (PREGNANCY AND PARENTAL LEAVE), 1990

Mr Mackenzie moved second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I am pleased to be able to open the debate on this bill today, and I think it would be only appropriate to point out two things.

One, the thoughts and some of the work on this bill; we never saw a finished copy of it, but I know the previous government was working on it when the election interrupted all of our activities, and we have drawn on some of the information that they were able to pull together in drafting the bill. I want to acknowledge that.

I have to say also that while we may not have agreed with C-21, the federal legislation, because it did a lot of damage to a lot of workers in terms of the length and the benefits they collected, nevertheless there were some readjustments that were useful; those were the readjustments in terms of pregnancy and family leave which certainly are designed, I think -- and I think it was the intent federally as well -- to protect and help families and working women in this country. This legislation is necessary to provide the protection that is there for those who take advantage of pregnancy leave provisions in the federal legislation.

I just wanted to acknowledge those two points.

I think the legislation itself is an important step forward in helping parents balance their family life and their work life. I think it is essential that we understand the need for stronger ties in today's world where so many women are in the workplace and where both parties have to work in many of the families and it makes it a little more difficult in terms of establishing the kind of family connections, family ties and family responsibilities and, indeed, maintaining the family unit that is so necessary.

The changes set the stage for a broader review of other ways of supporting working parents, but a little more on that later.

As the honourable members know, this legislation is most timely. It more than covers the period that parents can receive the benefits which came into effect under the Unemployment Insurance Act on 18 November in Bill C-21, which I referred to. Secondly, it recognizes the difficulties parents face in raising families while working full time.

These amendments to the Employment Standards Act will allow more working parents to stay at home to care for their newborn or adopted child. They come at a time when it is increasingly necessary for both parents to work outside the home. Today in 70% of Ontario families, both parents or the sole-support parent work outside the home. This figure is expected to increase to as much as 85% by the year 2000. I think that tells us clearly the changing circumstances in society today.

As equal parents in society, women have the right to work and the right to expect the rewards of a job, a career and day-to-day social interaction. Our society, in fact, would not move ahead if we did not recognize and utilize the contributions of our women members today.

Women also work because of economic necessity. Where once there was a choice, the day, I think, is long gone when the mother could stay at home while the father earned a living that could sustain a family. More often than not, two salaries are needed to keep the family earnings above the poverty level in our province. This situation is compounded by a high unemployment rate that continues to rise. Thousands of Ontario workers have lost their jobs, as businesses are forced to close, cut back or decide to move south in search of cheaper labour.

Sole-support mothers are hardest hit by these ailing economic times. Almost 40% of them in this province work to support themselves and their children, and 40% of that total are ranked below the poverty line in this province. Understandably, job security is a worry to both single-parent and two-parent working families that are expecting a child or are in the process of adoption.

Ontario workers are committed to their jobs and loyal to their employers, but they also want to be able to plan for their futures and for their families' futures. For this reason, it is psychologically and financially important for families to feel secure when a working mother needs to take time off to have her baby and knows she has a job to return to. It is also important that both the mother and father be given the opportunity of taking a reasonable period of time to care for a newborn or adopted child without fear of losing their jobs.

Under the legislation, each working parent for the first time will become eligible for 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborns and newly adopted children. This is in addition to the 17-week pregnancy leave already provided for mothers. For example, in a two-parent family each parent is entitled to 18 weeks' paternal leave. They can take this leave consecutively, providing a total of 36 weeks care to the new child. When the 17 weeks of pregnancy leave is included, the total amount of unpaid leave comes to 53 weeks.

The legislation defines a parent as a person in a relationship of some permanence with the natural or adoptive mother or father of the child. This person must intend to treat the child as his or her own. Adoptive parents are also included. The amendments ensure that seniority and pension benefits will accumulate and life insurance and extended health care will continue during the leaves. This is an improvement over the existing legislation, where these rights are frozen at the beginning of the pregnancy leave period.

Protecting seniority recognizes the woman's permanent role in the labour force and ensures that parents taking family-related leaves are not unduly penalized. Seniority is important for determining layoff and recall rights, promotions and vacations. In other words, they should not be put at a disadvantage by taking this family leave.

Continuation of seniority and some benefits will help maintain the relationship between employees and employers while the worker is on leave. The amendments also repeal the right of the employer to require a pregnant employee to leave because she cannot perform her normal work duties. My government feels the principles of the Human Rights Code should prevail in this matter. The code requires employers to accommodate the needs of pregnant employees unless they can show it would cause undue hardships for the businesses.

At present, employees can start pregnancy leave only up to 11 weeks before the expected date of delivery. The amendments we are discussing today allow pregnant workers to take pregnancy leave up to 17 weeks before the delivery date. This will help working women who experience medical complications during their pregnancies. The employee must give two weeks' notice before the intended date of beginning pregnancy leave. This would be waived, however, in the event of pregnancy complications, premature birth or the sudden coming into care of an adopted child. She must give four weeks' notice before returning to work. These notice periods are an improvement over existing legislation, as well, and will be of great benefit to women.

As to eligibility, the changes will reduce to 13 weeks the time a parent will have to work with the same employer to qualify for leave. This period corresponds with the three-month probationary period common in the workplace today. The current requirement of 12 months, 11 weeks is the longest in the country and overly restrictive. Without our proposed legislation, less than half of working women aged 20 to 44 are eligible for pregnancy leave. That is because only 40% of working women in that age group have job tenure of over 13 months, and we would certainly be eliminating all of these women from the protection needed without this move.

The sharply reduced qualifying time will open the opportunity for taking unpaid pregnancy and parental leave to thousands more parents than is now possible in the province. It is estimated that about 70,000 people will take advantage of the unpaid leaves this year.

1900

With the changes, this province's qualification period will be among the lowest in the country. British Columbia and New Brunswick have no qualification period, and Quebec has a 20-week period which it intends to eliminate; we are not sure just when.

The changes will be retroactive to 18 November. The effective date for federal changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act is contained in the federal government's legislation. The exception is the requirement that employers continue seniority and benefits. These benefits will come into effect once the bill receives royal assent.

It is urgent, I would stress to the members of this House, that this legislation be passed quickly so that working parents have legislated job and other protection when they take advantage of the unemployment insurance changes. I can tell members there are employees of ours right here in this building and in this chamber who are currently waiting for this particular protection.

The new unemployment insurance rules provide 10 weeks of parental benefits to new parents. By including 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave, our package will provide every qualified parent with the opportunity to claim all 10 weeks of UI parental benefits, and they will still have additional unpaid leave that they can use if they wish.

Under the UI regulations, a natural mother is eligible for up to 30 weeks of combined pregnancy, parental and sickness benefits in a 52-week period. The combined 35 weeks of leave provided by our amendments more than covers the period with adequate job protection.

As honourable members know, many businesses have already provided extended maternity and parental leave with continued benefits. As a matter of fact, it appears to be a fairly large number. This government is committed to improving the lives of working women and men across Ontario. The amendments before the members set the stage for new changes that will arise out of a broad review we are conducting of the Employment Standards Act, which governs basic requirements for things such as hours of work and severance pay. The review will include further consideration of a proposal for five days of unpaid family responsibility leave. This proposal would allow working people to deal with family responsibilities, be it to assist an elderly parent or to stay at home with a sick child.

In addition, the government is reviewing areas of reform such as child care and access to financial support relating to helping parents balance family and work responsibilities.

The amendments we are discussing today will make Ontario a leader in a number of areas. We will have the longest parental leave available to both parents and the right to continue such benefits with seniority. We believe that parents have the right to job security while staying at home to care for their child after birth or adoption. These amendments reflect the government's commitment to helping working families and its goal of equality for women workers. I suggest that it is a major step towards exactly that goal.

Mr Offer: I am pleased to rise and join in this debate, certainly in support of the legislation. I listened very closely as the honourable minister outlined the legislation and clearly indicated some of the aspects of the legislation. I would like to thank him for the begrudging acknowledgment that this legislation was in fact legislation which we were going to be introducing but, as is quite evident, it required the initial passage of federal unemployment insurance regulations. This legislation could not be introduced. or in fact passed, until the federal government had brought in and completely passed its UI regulations, which has just recently taken place. So the acknowledgement, begrudging as it was, is accepted.

This is, as I have indicated, legislation which our party clearly supports. In fact, not only do we support the legislation, the intent and the wording but we are very much in support of its quick passage. It is an initiative which, as has been indicated, gives job protection of up to 18 weeks to both mothers and fathers in the workforce. Of course, that is in addition to the 17-week pregnancy leave which is currently in force.

I think that this is legislation that first, of course, harmonizes itself in many ways with the federal legislation. It is also a reflection of what the family is in this province in the 1990s and onwards. More families are certainly now composed of parents who both work. There is no question about that. I was recently informed of some statistics that showed that only about 15% of families have one parent working and one at home, something that one might have recognized as the traditional or historical family setup; that is no longer the case. Now we have most families where mother and father or a single parent are working and it is necessary that the job protection aspects of the Employment Standards Act clearly reflect what our workforce comprises, what the movement is in terms of working families.

It is important that there be job protection after birth or adoption to care for a new member or newly adopted child of the family. It will, I believe, provide a good step in the ongoing existence of that family. It is important that both parents recognize, have a security and an understanding that their jobs during this time will be fully protected.

I believe it is important, though I certainly support the legislation, that it is not only necessary to provide protection for the job; it is, I believe, of almost equal importance that there be a very specific message sent out that it is important to take advantage of this protection. I do not think it is good enough just to have in the Employment Standards Act that protection available to both mother and father. I believe it is the responsibility of the government to send out, in clear, unmistakable terms, that it is important to exercise that new protection under the ESA.

I know that in some jurisdictions where this type of protection already exists, only about 5% of the males actually exercise the protection afforded in the legislation. Five per cent just is not enough. I think it flies in the face of the purpose of the legislation. So I say to the government to work on sending out the message that the protection is available, is there and should be exercised.

As I indicated earlier, we are very much in support of this legislation. We think that this type of protection is necessary. We think that it is important to harmonize itself clearly with the federal UI regulations that have recently been passed. We believe and hope that it will be passed very, very rapidly.

I think, as I have this opportunity of standing here with the Minister of Labour in attendance, we must recognize that there are many jobs in this province being lost, many jobs even since October. Something in the area of 11,000 jobs have been lost. Yes, this particular legislation talks about protection afforded to people with jobs. We must recognize that there are many people who are losing their jobs and as such will have no opportunity to take the protection that this legislation affords.

1910

So I say to the Minister of Labour it is time not only to make certain that job loss is stopped, is curtailed in this time of recession, but also for the government to start creating jobs, to start getting more people in the workforce, to start getting more people jobs so that they can take the protection of the amendments which he has just introduced, and hopefully to be passed very shortly.

We are in a recession, people are losing jobs. We need clear job creation programs by the government to stop the erosion of jobs on one hand and, second, to create new jobs, to build back that employment force. The impact of that on a family is, I know everyone in this House will recognize, as well as those outside this Legislature, devastating. The pressures, the anxiety, the insecurity are growing each and every day. So yes, we are very much in support of these particular amendments. Yes, we think that the protection this particular legislation provides is necessary, but we also very much believe and very strongly feel that there is the need to create jobs, there is the need to secure the jobs that have not yet been ravaged by this recession. We are calling upon the Minister of Labour, and in fact this government, to provide that.

It is in conclusion that I state again that we support the legislation, we support its purpose, we acknowledge that it was very much in keeping with legislation that we were going to introduce, that it was always dependent upon the federal government's unemployment insurance regulations being passed. That has now been done, the legislation has now been introduced and we would ask all members of this Legislature not only to support the legislation but also to act for its quick passage.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to preface my remarks by pointing out that I do support the principle of Bill 14. I would agree with the Minister of Labour that it does represent a very significant and a very important step forward for both working men and women who become parents either through birth or adoption. I very much appreciate the job protection that this legislation affords parents.

However, I do regret that there was not more extensive consultation with all of those affected by the legislation and that we have very little time for debate on this bill, because this bill does have some extremely important provisions which will have a significant impact on both employers and employees.

As the Minister of Labour has pointed out, the former Liberal government did release a discussion paper on this topic and consultations were carried out on the basis of that discussion paper. However, that discussion paper differed considerably from the present legislation in two very significant areas: first, the reduction of the qualification threshold from one year and 11 weeks to three months and, second, the provision for seniority and pension benefits to accumulate, as well as other benefits continuing during the maternity/parental leave period.

The consultations of the previous Liberal discussion paper were carried out on the basis of a six-month threshold and a freeze on benefit provisions and seniority accumulation. Obviously, these two changes are extremely significant.

As far as the length of time that we have for discussion in this chamber goes. unfortunately we are being put in a very difficult position. If we do not pass the legislation before Christmas we will be creating in this province a tremendous amount of confusion for both employers and employees concerning the length of leave an employee is entitled to because, as the Minister of Labour has pointed out, this legislation is retroactive to 18 November 1990. Therefore we face a very, very difficult decision. Do we avoid leaving employers and employees in limbo and provide for speedy passage of this legislation or do we fight for amendments to this bill and insist on more public consultation?

As I stated, I support the principle of this bill. I would agree with the Minister of Labour that it does represent a very significant and a very important step forward for women and for men who become parents. More important, it also helps working parents to better integrate work and family lives, it recognizes the reality that many women today are part of the workforce. and it gives them the security of job protection.

I support the addition of the 18 weeks of parental leave for both parents. I believe it is reasonable, and I am extremely pleased that parents are going to have the choice. They can either choose to be with their child for the first year after birth or they can allow someone else to provide that care.

I also support continuing the seniority and benefit accumulation through the maternity and parental leave period. It is important that these aspects of the parents' jobs be unaffected by the decision to take a leave.

However, I do not support the provision in this bill to reduce the eligibility threshold from one year and 11 weeks to only three months. This change demonstrates very little or almost no concern for small business. It is important to recognize that in this province three quarters of the businesses employ fewer than five employees. These small firms with less than five employees are going to have considerable difficulty accommodating absence. For these people, there is a need to plan very carefully for an absence of an employee.

We must remember also that in small businesses the hiring and the training of employees is usually handled by the owner, and in most businesses it takes people at least three months, or more, to learn a new position. In fact, when I visited a company in my home town last week I learned that it required four months of training to learn a skill. Under this legislation, an employee could take up to 35 weeks of leave, which is almost nine months, after only three months on the job. Obviously when they return, they will have to be retrained for that position. In the meantime a second person will have to be trained for that position and this will incur additional costs for the small business employer.

Yes, the difficulties associated with filling a position after only three months imposes a most unfair burden on small business, and we must be very sensitive to their concerns since they are three quarters of the businesses in this province.

It is for that reason that I would like to inform this House that I will be introducing an amendment to this bill to change the eligibility threshold. Although this bill represents a significant step forward for parents in this province and does provide greater equality and protection for women, it does contain the one serious shortcoming, the eligibility threshold, and I hope the government will be very willing to consider the amendment that we will be proposing.

1920

Ms S. Murdock: In the world today the reality is that the majority of families in Ontario need more than one wage just to meet the daily escalating costs. For many of them this is not a choice, this is a necessity. Each year the number of families with both parents working increases. As well, the single-parent incomes have grown dramatically.

Bill 14, this bill, is aimed at alleviating some of those home pressures. It is a step towards an equitable balancing between your work and your family life. It also allows parents to spend time with their newborn or their adopted child during that child's most vulnerable period and it also allows them to spend that time without fear of reprisals from work. I think that is the most important part of this whole bill, in terms of Bill 14. It is not just an arbitrary or draconian measure, it is just a recognition of the changes that have occurred in our society. I think its intent is to rectify some of those negative changes and the side-effects of the societal changes that have occurred in our lives.

Under the new legislation, each working parent will be eligible for 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave to care for newborn or newly adopted children. This is in addition to the 17 weeks of pregnancy leave already provided for the mothers. It is important that both parents be given the eligibility for parental and family leave. As society has recognized the importance of women in the workforce, we are also at last recognizing the importance of fathers in the upbringing of their children, especially during the first year of the child's life. Equally important, both adoptive parents should be able to spend time with their new children to establish the relationships that are so important as the child grows.

Bill 14 is also intended, as I said, and in my belief very importantly, to help protect the jobs of new parents. While acknowledging the need to provide a secure home life, we also must provide security at work. Parents must be assured that their jobs, their source of income, will not be endangered while they provide the care that their new child requires. They must also be assured that the seniority and other benefits that they earn during the normal course of their employment continue.

Seniority is one of the most important facets of the employer-employee relationship. There should be no penalty, in our view, imposed for what is a natural function of human life. Seniority determines vacation scheduling, promotion possibilities, layoff and recall rights and a host of other job-related prerogatives. Bill 14 addresses those concerns.

It is a recent phenomenon that women have entered the workforce in such large numbers. The rights that they have attained cannot be lost or frozen simply because they have decided to become mothers. Bill 14 ensures that certain benefits and seniority will continue while either the mother or the father takes the unpaid family leave. This way, people will not be penalized for deciding to have a family.

The overriding concept of this bill is fairness. We cannot on one side say that yes, women should be in the workforce and they should be treated equally, we cannot be talking about pay equity and then, on the other hand, simply permit them to lose their rights if they opt to have children. Nor can we exclude the fathers from those same parental rights.

That is why we are presenting this bill for approval. I urge all the members to support it. It is a timely and necessary piece of legislation. Quick passage will definitely assist the working parents of this province.

Mr J. Wilson: I welcome the opportunity to comment on a bill that has far-reaching social and economic impact. I do not think there is, nor should there be, a member in this House who disputes the need for legislation that provides working parents with the support to nurture their child while maintaining the security of employment.

Industrialization has carried with it a myriad of pressures that have served to weaken the family. With that in mind, I would like to praise this government for putting forward legislation that recognizes the need to fortify the family. The strength of our society has been and will continue to be deeply entrenched in the family. But our job as legislators is to ensure that every piece of legislation we agree to is both fair and justified on the grounds that it is the best remedy under the existing circumstances.

I wonder if the amendment to the Employment Standards Act in its current form enables us to fulfil our mandate as legislators. While I am not arguing with the basic premise of this bill, I do not feel that it is both fair and the best possible piece of legislation under the circumstances. Therefore, it does not pass the test of good legislation. In the final analysis, Bill 14, with all its good intentions, fails to strike an effective balance that is fair for both employer and employee.

In my capacity as Progressive Conservative critic for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, I have had the opportunity to consult with small businesses and tourism operators and the message they have given me is threefold. First, the NDP government failed to consult with tourism operators in advance of the Minister of Labour tabling the contents of Bill 14. Second, no impact study was undertaken to document the effects this bill would have on small businesses and tourism operators. Third, certain provisions of this legislation will have a profound impact on these types of businesses.

A release announcing the government's new legislation regarding parental leave, dated 22 November, stated, "In announcing the proposed amendments, Labour minister Bob Mackenzie told the Legislature today the legislation would guarantee parents' right to continuing employment after return from leave."

Once again, the premise is fine, but the reality of our present economic situation could paint a vastly different picture. This government has to begin to realize that squeezing the social assistance net too tightly could lead to additional unemployment, given the economic climate we find ourselves in today. Guaranteeing the right of parents to return to jobs is one thing, but what is the minister doing to guarantee that parents have jobs to take leave from?

My fear is that Bill 14 in its present form could be the final straw for many embattled small businesses and it could in the final analysis wind up costing jobs. All of us in this House must be aware of the precarious state that small businesses find themselves in. The number of companies that declared bankruptcy in October 1990 jumped by over 50% from October of last year.

If Bill 14 is found lacking, it is because it fails to factor in small businesses and tourism operators. Under the present legislation, women must have worked for the same employer for 12 months and 11 weeks. Under Bill 14, that threshold of eligibility is carried to just 13 weeks. If the government had any interest in consulting or any concern for the opinions of Tourism Ontario and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, it would have realized the changes needed to this bill.

Perhaps I could share with the minister and the government members here the sentiments expressed to me by Tourism Ontario. Let me quote from a statement they issued regarding the proposed parental leave legislation: "No small business in our industry can afford the luxury of extending the proposed unpaid parental leave to workers without probable business and service interruption."

What that means is, there will be a severe impact to tourism operators from this legislation. The question that I would ask is, can we afford another blow to our economy?

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business estimates that 75% of Ontario businesses have fewer than five employees and that 96% have fewer than 50 employees. Altering the threshold of eligibility for unpaid parental leave from 12 months and 11 weeks to just 13 weeks makes it virtually impossible for small businesses and tourism operators to maintain a steady, reliable workforce.

1930

In the hospitality industry, the quality of the workforce has everything to do with the viability of the business. For the last four years, tourism operators have had to scuffle to overcome the scarcity of good help. Bill 14 ensures that this struggle will continue. Couple this with the fact that small business owners will not only have to train replacement workers more often, but will also have to shoulder the costs associated with training a workforce that is subject to a higher and higher turnover.

Assuming a tourism and small business employer is fortunate enough to find a replacement worker to substitute for the worker who is on maternal or parental leave, under Bill 14 is the employer legally exempted from having to pay for severance or for wrongful dismissal when the temporary worker is then terminated? As well, what happens if the replacement worker becomes pregnant or an adoptive parent? Will she or he also have their respective benefits extended while on leave? How is the government planning to protect a potential employee who may be pregnant or may be planning a pregnancy shortly after she is hired? Employers may hesitate to hire women for fear that they will take pregnancy or parental leave after completing their initial training.

These are all problems associated with an unrealistic and potentially harmful threshold of eligibility. which requires that an employee only be employed with the business for 13 weeks before being entitled to take a 35-week leave. With the economic climate such as it is, can we afford to roll the dice with our small business people? I say we cannot. The threshold of eligibility for parental leave benefits must be amended from three to nine months. At the very least, some sensitivity must be shown for tourism operators and small businesses that are on the edge of economic ruin.

When the minister rose to make his announcement in the House some three weeks ago, an exasperated plea echoed through the halls of Queen's Park. The plea grows larger by the day as small business attempts to find out where it fits into the NDP's Agenda for People.

The government's message to small business that benefits will accumulate during parental leave is tantamount to an oversized bully kicking sand in the face of the 90-pound weakling, only this time the weakling has absolutely nothing left in his arsenal to fight back with because this government and the previous Liberal government have stripped him of all his resources by taxing and legislating him into the ground.

The best way to ensure a more compassionate and prosperous Ontario is to embark on policies that represent all Ontarians. Towards that end the government should move forward with Bill 14, but with several critical amendments in place.

First, the threshold of eligibility for parental leave benefits, I believe, must be nine months. Second, I believe benefits such as seniority, life insurance and extended health care must not accumulate during leave, but should be frozen. The accumulation of benefits will cost employers between $140 and $160 for each unpaid leave. That may seem like a paltry sum for large employers, but I suggest that it is courting disaster for tourism operators who are hanging by a precarious economic thread currently.

Third, I believe this bill should not be held up, and with that in mind the parental leave changes should be restricted to the federal level of 10 weeks. It is important that we free up access for parental leave immediately, but that we do so in a prudent fashion. This government should not hold a dagger over our heads to push through what is a well-intended, but flawed piece of legislation.

Perhaps the government should also be aware that a 13-week threshold of eligibility for parental leave could jeopardize the employment prospects for women. Again, already some small businesses are suggesting that they may not be able to hire women as a direct result of Bill 14. By addressing and amending the flaws in the bill the government can send out a message that has been previously forsaken, that this government will consult on legislation.

In order for Bill 14 to work it must address the whole of society. By acting on these amendments, this government will demonstrate its willingness to accept the responsibility of acting with the interests of all Ontarians in mind.

Mr Jackson: I wish to acknowledge the Minister of Labour and his Bill 14. I am quite familiar with the intent and the objectives of this labour bill. However, from my personal perspective I tend to try to look at legislation from the point of view of whom it really affects. In this instance, I find that the debate in the House on this particular bill is noticeably absent in its implications for children in this province.

There is a long list of studies and reports that have been undertaken in the last decade that deal with the issue of child parenting and child nurturing, support that assists children in their formative years. I shared a six-year experience on the social development committee when there were some occasions, with my friends who were then in the opposition and with the then third party, most notably the member for Scarborough West, to examine a couple of very important recommendations that would structurally alter the way we provide these kinds of services to children. I am fascinated that the New Democratic government is addressing those from a labour perspective. I am not surprised; I am just very fascinated that this becomes its focus.

I, for one, want to support the bill and I will, but I believe that the approach taken is more interested in addressing a labour issue than it is specifically to look at children's needs. How I come to that conclusion is simply that the opportunity afforded here is obviously unpaid leave and protection for the seniority rights and all those labour matters that have been enumerated by the members of the NDP government.

What it does not discuss, for example, is, who is going to take advantage of this legislation and who is going to benefit from this opportunity. One cannot say that all children in this province, all newborns, will. In fact, only those children whose parents are wealthy enough will be able to benefit because they can afford to be without income for 28 weeks, go on some other rotation and perhaps survive on one income or sustain themselves on one income or even, for some even more fortunate, sustain their lifestyle without any income during that period.

What concerns me is that this may not have been an intended purpose, but it certainly is going to be an outcome. It strikes me that the very children in this province who need that kind of nurturing, attention and support in parenting programs and a whole host of other things the member for Scarborough West, when he was the member, and I talked at length to in the social development committee -- we know, for example, of the thousands of children in Ontario who go to school every day hungry. We know that children, regardless of income, suffer certain conditions in the family setting. But we know that if the family is poorer, the child goes hungrier.

Just the other day I was referencing a report on food banks. The member for Hamilton West talked most eloquently about the need not to fund food banks in his report. But there was a section in that report that talked about the practice of mothers with newborn babies watering down their formulas and doing certain things to survive, quite frankly at a lot of expense to the family, but the child just is not getting that kind of attention. Those are the kinds of issues we should be discussing here.

1940

I very much see this as a bill for those more affluent parents who have an opportunity to take advantage of the opportunity that is being provided by the NDP government. Given the socialists' infatuation with universal programs, I am not surprised. I do not subscribe to that. I happen to believe that the poor need focused support and focused attention. It is a theme that I will address later on this evening when I talk to the Minister of Housing on Bill 4, another universal program, because his rent control programs are specifically hurting the poor, but my wealthier tenants are very happy that they are able to go to Florida this winter and their rents have been capped.

I know you want me to stay on topic with the bill, Madam Speaker, and so having first made my point --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: Well, the member for Halton Centre can have an opportunity to tune in later. I know she does not agree with my strong views on support for children.

Anyway, having said that, the second point I want to raise that concerns me is the issue of the definition of "parent." I know that this legislation was prepared quickly and presented to the House with little consultation. That point has been made. But under certain circumstances I think we should be discussing this concept of the broadened or expanded version of "parent." The way I read this section, anybody who has a specific relationship with a parent and wishes to act in the capacity of a parent would be eligible for this leave.

There are a couple of examples I know in my own riding that concern me which might lend themselves to this. One is the case of severely disabled children. I am afraid to say this, but there have been cases where there have been marital breakups as a result of the birth of a severely disabled child. We have had cases of that. In those circumstances, part of the support group is other family members moving in to help raise the child. Under this definition I am not sure if, for example, a sister who lives under the same roof and who acts in a parenting capacity would now be eligible for this leave. A single parent: Would this now allow, for example, a grandparent to be eligible for this leave?

I know the minister is listening and I hope that he or his ministry staff will provide an answer for the record, because as it relates to the disabled community, I very much support the expanded definition because of the circumstances families find themselves in when coping with the newborn child, whether it is with Down syndrome or any other of a whole range of severe disabilities that make the whole process of parenting that much more difficult.

The only reason I raise those two points is that I think it is important we understand that this is more a labour bill and less a bill to deal with providing greater access for children in this province who need it the most. I am rather disappointed that this eventually will be implemented in a way in which the families of those children who have the great fortune to be born into affluence or born into comfortable circumstances in life may be able to benefit from this bill, but the families of those children who are not -- we know that today in Ontario that represents a growing number of children who are born in this province -- will have no hope of ever participating in this kind of legislation. They unfortunately will be the lesser to benefit for it.

I would hope that when the NDP government looks at legislation not just through the eyes of a labour perspective, it will look more clearly at its impact on children so that we might get some future amendments that deal more directly to support those children in need.

I wish to commend the minister for the bill and I certainly will be supporting it.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I have been following the arguments and comments made. Certainly we will be taking a look at them. I want to respond just briefly to two or three of them and then make a few closing comments.

I am sorry the member for Mississauga North thought that my comments were grudging. Maybe it is Mackenzie style; I do not know. We did not have a finished bill that we could have used or we would have been here even more quickly with it. We did have the results of some of the consultations that went on. I can say to some of my Tory friends that those consultations were fairly extensive. While there were preferences for time frames, there was a discussion of all of the various options in the course of consultation with the various parties.

I can also tell the member for Mississauga North that I am aware of the need to get the word out that these kinds of important benefits are there to protect people.

On the comments of the member for Simcoe West, I think it was, no employer will be required to provide benefits if the employer does not now do so. I would just make sure that he recognizes that particular point. Only employers who presently provide certain benefits are required to continue them.

In terms of the qualification period, in only two provinces, British Columbia and New Brunswick, as I mentioned, is there no qualification period whatsoever. While it is currently a 20-week period in Quebec, the information we have, although not the time frame, is that it will be moving to a zero qualification period as well. I can tell the member that our checks with BC and New Brunswick have indicated no difficulty even with the zero qualification period.

I think the difficulty in looking at it in that way is that you certainly are discriminating against an awful lot of women. Yes, there is an additional problem from time to time with the smaller businesses, but those very women in the smaller businesses are often those who have the least clout and need the protection more than many others. It is why we have made the move that we have.

If I can just make a few closing remarks, I have heard what my honourable colleagues have said about these changes. They are wide-ranging and they are important to women. As I said in my earlier remarks, Bill 14 is a timely piece of legislation. It is closely tied to the recently enacted federal amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act and recognizes the mounting difficulties parents face in raising families while working. Several people have referred to that. It is a valid and I think the most important argument that you can make.

The amendments provide that working parents will for the first time become eligible for 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for newborn and newly adopted children. This provides the father with an opportunity to be actively involved in the care of his child during a critical time in the baby's life as well. The new parental leave will be in addition to the 17 weeks of unpaid pregnancy leave already provided by the Employment Standards Act. It will apply to both natural and adoptive parents. The legislation guarantees working parents the right to return to their regular jobs when the leave ends.

As honourable members know, the provisions more than cover the length of time parents can receive benefits under changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act that came into effect on 18 November. I urge speedy passage of the legislation to ensure that working parents have job and other protections when they take advantage of the UI benefits.

Once passed, the addition of parental leave and other key provisions will be retroactive to 18 November, the effective date for federal changes to UI benefits. This means, I should point out, that a mother who gives birth after 18 November can immediately take advantage of the 18 weeks' parental leave and can apply for the 10 weeks of UI benefits. The father can either take 18 weeks at the same time as the mother or immediately after her parental leave ends. He is also entitled to 10 weeks of UI benefits.

The amendments reduce to 13 weeks, which I discussed earlier, the time parents will have to work with the same employer to be eligible for leave. At present the qualification time is more than one year. The reduction will open the opportunity of taking unpaid pregnancy and parental leave to thousands more parents. One of the things that did disturb us was the number who are currently disqualified as a result of the period of time that is there.

In addition, Bill 14 provides that seniority and pension benefits will accumulate. Life insurance and extended health care will continue during the leaves.

All amendments except those dealing with seniority and benefits are retroactive to 18 November. This will help working parents in using the UI benefits.

Bill 14 is an important step towards helping parents balance their family life and their work life and I urge the honourable members to support it.

Finally, as a comment, I would point out to the member for Burlington South we recognize that well-to-do people probably will have an advantage in any legislation of this kind, and it is one of the reasons we intend to look at the kind of coverage that is needed in terms of families and the importance of being there when the children are born and during the early formative years of a child's life. We will be taking a look at that critical time of family life.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1950

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AREA

Mrs Grier moved resolution 5:

That this House approves the orders made by the Minister of the Environment published in the Ontario Gazette as Ontario regulation 506/90, amending Ontario regulation 684/80, and as Ontario regulation 507/90, amending Ontario regulation 684/80, for the Niagara Escarpment planning area.

Hon Mrs Grier: This is a very routine motion. I am executing an order first signed by the member for St Catharines and adding to the Niagara Escarpment plan area two areas, one in the county of Grey and the other in Hamilton-Wentworth. According to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, such regulations have to come before this House. So it is a fairly unusual procedure but, at the same time, a very routine one. I urge the House to adopt the resolution.

Mr B. Murdoch: I would first like to thank the minister for bringing the resolution forward. I do support it. Grey has wanted this resolution brought forward for more than two years, but with the incompetence of the past Minister of the Environment and his apparent vendetta against Grey county, this has not happened until now.

I would also like to put the ministers of the Environment, Natural Resources and Culture and Communications on notice that Grey county does not intend to retain ownership of this land as a public park. We feel the province should buy this land through the Ontario Heritage Foundation for the park system in the Niagara Escarpment.

Mr Bradley: Madam Speaker, you would anticipate that I would probably be supporting this particular motion, which I think is a very progressive motion on the part of the Minister of the Environment of the day, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore.

For some time I have been a very strong advocate and supporter of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, and I continue to be. I know there are forces within the province of Ontario that would like to see the Niagara Escarpment emasculated or dismembered. I just heard a comment about the previous Minister of the Environment that came from the member for Grey. The member for Grey, of course, was very supportive of many of the planning changes that have taken place over the last while in the county of Grey, and certainly he could never be counted upon to be a supporter of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment plan, a plan which I believe is extremely important to the province of Ontario.

I find it interesting that there is this kind of criticism because we -- all members of this House, I think -- recognize that there is natural beauty in the Niagara Escarpment and that it is in fact something that is protected and has had the support from time to time of all three parties and various ministers of those three parties. I was pleased that the previous government transferred responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment Commission from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to the Ministry of the Environment, where I think it belongs, certainly in the 1990s, because we are in fact protecting the environment of the province of Ontario.

I have been extremely disturbed to look at some of the patterns of development that have been taking place along the escarpment from time to time, or the attempts to change zonings within that escarpment and some of the planning decisions which have been made for some period of time. I note with a good deal of interest how some of those changes were made, how planning people who were in favour of restrictive planning in fact had their minds changed or, if they were not in compliance with it, seemed to leave their jobs.

I noticed on many occasions that some decisions have been taken which I do not think were in the best interests of either the Niagara Escarpment Commission or planning in the province of Ontario. As long as I am a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, I will be an extremely strong advocate of the preservation of the land that is found within the Niagara Escarpment area and the addition of other lands within that area.

I will also be supportive of measures designed to prevent those at the local level who wish to make changes that are detrimental to the Niagara Escarpment Commission and to good planning practices in the province of Ontario. That is one of the reasons I got elected to this Legislative Assembly: to ensure that this would be the case.

A number of years ago a resolution was put before the Legislature by one of my own colleagues; it called for what I felt was the emasculation of the Niagara Escarpment area. I voted against that resolution in this House. I did so with some pride, although it was annoying to some of my colleagues because, again, I think we have an asset that a lot of other people would like to have. It is something that I do not think should be developed holus-bolus in this province. If it were to be developed in that way, it would be genuinely a tragedy.

I look at some of the efforts to wrest control from the Niagara Escarpment Commission and turn over that control to local authorities. We all know that the provincial authority, whether we like it or not, is much more objective than a local authority can be in this regard. While of course there must be consultation with that a local authority, one has to watch, because it is much easier to manipulate local authorities than it is to manipulate the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make decisions that would be detrimental to the Niagara Escarpment plan or to good planning practices in this province.

When these areas are included in the Niagara Escarpment, I hope it is not simply a matter of including these specific areas but that, as people come forward with proposals for including other areas within the realm of jurisdiction of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, there will not be resistance to that. One need only look at some of the recent developments that have taken place in the province of Ontario to see that it is not always particularly good for the province as a whole to see a lot of spot rezonings that might take place in any specific case, or particularly severances which are granted almost willy-nilly by some local authorities. Of course, we know that the loss of good agricultural land and other land which is of environmental nature certainly begins with almost unrestricted severances being given to individuals and corporations within a community.

I hope that this government, which I think has pledged itself to the preservation of agricultural land, has pledged itself to the preservation of the escarpment. I have no fear that this government will deviate from that course, which the other government was interested in pursuing and it was one of the reasons, of course, why this particular commission was placed under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of the Environment.

I think what we are doing through this resolution and through the support of this resolution is something that is positive for all of the province of Ontario. I hope it is a basis upon which we can build. I hope we will resist those forces in the province of Ontario which would like to change that. That is again one of the reasons why Ontario is somewhat unique from other jurisdictions.

You, Madam Speaker, and many members of the Legislature will have been in other jurisdictions where there have not been proper planning processes, where you have end-to-end shopping centres or individual developments that have taken place in other jurisdictions. One of the things that people from those jurisdictions, some of them in the United States, will say about coming to Canada and to the province of Ontario is how pleased they are to see that we have preserved some of those lands which are of lasting value to us. I guess Will Rogers was the person who was quoted in this; others have probably said it. On one occasion he said, "They're not making land any more." That is why it is a valuable resource, and indeed it is.

We look to the future, not just to the past, not just to the quick buck in the present. We look to the future and what is going to be of perhaps not monetary value but some other value that perhaps a dollar cannot be placed upon in the future. I think the people of this province will thank us for including these and other areas and for being very supportive of the Niagara Escarpment plan.

2000

Mr Tilson: I must say, I congratulate the Minister of the Environment for the proposal she has before the House this afternoon.

The Niagara Escarpment does substantially affect my riding, which is Dufferin-Peel; it goes right up through the middle of it and is, generally speaking, largely supported in my riding. I have lived in Dufferin-Peel for a little over 20 years and, of course, during that time, since the implementation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, I have enjoyed the scenery. I have walked it, I have fished it, I have driven through it. People come from far and wide to see the scenery in our community and we are most proud of it.

Obviously I think many of us in this House and certainly many people in my riding are supportive of a commission that would protect the natural beauty of our province. I can honestly say that I have been, am now and in the future will generally be supportive of the proposals that are being put forward by the Niagara Escarpment Commission and I certainly intend to support this resolution.

The reason I have risen to speak on this matter, however, is perhaps one of a procedural nature and it is one that has concerned me probably since the implementation of the commission, which I appreciate has gone through three different parties. The procedure has to do with two areas; one is of notice to people whose lands are going to be subject to the commission, lands that are regulated by the commission, and the second has to do with the decision-making that is set out in the act.

With respect to notice and with respect to this specific resolution, I hope the people who live in the two areas that are subject to this resolution have all received notice. My understanding from the act is that notice is given by advertisements in newspapers. That is all. So if you own land that is within the area that is going to be expanded or that it is subject to, if you do not read the newspapers in which this regulation could substantially affect your land, you are simply out of luck if you do not read about it.

In other areas -- whether it be in the courts, which have to give direct notice to people who are involved, or an application for a severance or an application to change an official plan, amend an official plan in a specific municipality, or an application to change zoning -- notice must be given to the people who are directly affected and to people who are within so many feet of the area affected, whether it is a zoning or official plan amendment, so that those people receive direct notice by mail.

I see that as a flaw in the system, because the ownership of our land in this province is very dear to us, and although I believe many people in the province support the Niagara Escarpment Commission, when it comes to the effect on their own land, if they have not received notice, they will be mad; they will be most annoyed and the value of their land could be depreciated. It could mean they might not be able to build on their land. In fact, quite often you hear arguments that we have expropriation without compensation. That argument has been given in the past.

I think it is a question of there being a proper judicial process, of fairness, of people being able to receive notice of specific proceedings that are being undertaken by the government and are able to appear before the commission or hearing officer or whoever is dealing with it, and putting their representations either in support or in opposition of it. The only notice, to my knowledge, and if someone will correct me I would appreciate it, is notice via the newspapers. I find that totally inappropriate, and I hope that with the specific resolution that is before this House, all have received notice who are entitled to receive it and who may have a direct interest in those proceedings.

The second area I wish to raise in the House has to do with the decision-making under the commission. Whether for a development permit or for an application to expand the size of the area that is under the jurisdiction of the commission, which is this specific resolution, an application is made under the act and that is heard by a hearing officer. If you receive notice, or if you hear about it by reading it in the newspapers or from your friends or your neighbours, then you have the right to attend before the hearing officer, who will write down all the submissions and all the comments for and against. The hearing officer will not make a decision at that particular place. The hearing officer will take his or her notes, go away and supposedly make a decision under the legislation; but we do not know because we cannot appear before that person. We cannot appear before that person to debate whether or not that decision is proper.

The hearing officer takes his or her comments to the minister and the minister, as I understand the legislation, may agree or disagree. But individual citizens do not have the right to make representations to the minister. The minister can make unilateral decisions whether to expand the size of the area or to grant or not grant a development permit, and all that is said to individuals is, "Tough luck." They have no recourse, none.

I understand there is a process whereby if the minister and the hearing officer are not in agreement, the minister can refer the matter to the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and there too a decision is made without being able to hear representations from the people who own the land or parties that are involved. These decisions involve land which they may have their life savings in, which they may have worked very hard on, which may be their retirement land; it may be land they live on, it may be their recreational property, it may be their business -- it could be any number of areas which affect them in various capacities, but they have no right to appear before any of those decision-makers and make submissions for or against the decision that is going to be made. The only thing they can do is receive the decision and, if they do not like it, tough.

I must say I find that procedure under the commission totally inappropriate. I hope, for the sake of the government in making this resolution, that all who are entitled to receive the notice have received it. I hope they will be allowed to make their representations.

I doubt very much whether all who want to receive the notice will have received it. There may be some examples already where people have not received notice of this. I am willing to bet they may wish to proceed beyond the hearing officer, but they will not have that right.

I would hope that this government would take these comments into consideration and make the appropriate amendments to make the commission and all the various decision-making powers it has a little fairer to our society.

2010

Mrs Marland: I rise to comment on this legislation with respect to the environmental interests of all of us in our caucus.

I think it is important to place on the record again the fact that we have the Niagara Escarpment Commission because of the vision and the brilliance of the former Progressive Conservative government in this province. For those of us who cherish what the Niagara Escarpment Commission has been able to protect and what has been achieved through the years of its existence in terms of the preservation of the fauna, the wildlife and the natural resources that are contained within its geographic parameters, I think it is singularly significant that the United Nations recognized the Niagara Escarpment as a unique reserve that should have a very unique designation, that of a United Nations biosphere.

It is with great pride that we think about what the Niagara Escarpment is and how it exists because of the initial commitment of a very few people. It is like so many things that are preserved; they usually are because, almost too late, somebody comes along and says: "My goodness. Look what's happening here. We've got development filling in our marshes, our wetlands, destroying our trees." Suddenly, everything that is valuable in terms of our natural heritage is gone.

Thankfully, we are blessed in this province with people who have that vision in terms of this kind of preservation. There are many, many environmental groups and individual environmentalists and people who are not affiliated with any formal organization who, through their own work and dedication and commitment, have seen to it that these kinds of areas are conservation areas for ever, for the public to have access to in the future and to be protected from the erosion of mankind.

We have a perfect example of this kind of natural resource in the Rattray marsh in my riding. It is a tremendously unique and rare wetland area of 88 acres which originally was saved by the efforts of one individual, Dr Ruth Hussey. When you think of how one individual can make a difference, I believe it should be a motivation for all of us to believe that we can make a difference. That one individual must have decided, at the beginning of the Niagara Escarpment Commission, that she could see what was happening to the Niagara Escarpment in terms of its erosion, and that once it was lost, it would be lost for ever. That one individual obviously became a catalyst to a group and then an ever-enlarging circle. These ever-enlarging circles of committed people leave for all of us a priceless legacy in our province.

When we see what is happening even along our natural lakeshore on the north shore of Lake Ontario and we look at the fact that very soon we will have nothing but asphalt from Whitby to Hamilton, we sometimes should, I think, reflect on the fact that Canada is a very large country, Ontario is a very large province and, really, does everyone have to live on top of each other in southwestern Ontario? Do we really have to be such poor planners that we end up creating park space by landfilling into our lake? Who would ever have thought that we would see the day where it was necessary to create green space, park land and recreational areas off the north shore of Lake Ontario by landfilling into the lake itself? Those, I suggest, are examples of no vision, no planning and no commitment to providing people recreational areas while allowing people and employment sectors to develop in densely urban areas.

Fortunately for us, however, we have legislation that does protect some of these areas. This piece of legislation in front of us tonight is one such piece of legislation. We support the preservation and continuation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission because of what it is to many, many thousands of people and what it can be for ever as a legacy for people in the future.

In mentioning the commitment and the work towards that commission, I would be remiss if I did not mention the work of my own colleague in this caucus, the member for Carleton. He had a great deal to do with the establishment and the formulation of the Niagara Escarpment Commission and its continuing commitment to preservation of that area.

I rise simply to say that I am happy to see this legislation before us. I agree, however, with the comments of my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel, because I think in anything there has to be an equity of the system enforced. That is simply all he is asking for. I think those are just and fair comments. Certainly overall there is no question that we in our caucus feel very strongly in the majority about the preservation of the Niagara Escarpment.

2020

Ms Haeck: I will not spend a great deal of time speaking this evening on this topic. However, I feel that since the Niagara Escarpment in fact forms the southernmost boundary to my riding, it is really incumbent upon me to add comments to the record this evening indicating my full support for the expansion of the Niagara Escarpment and making sure that over a period of time we increase the enforcement of the regulations that already exist.

As the member for St Catharines so eloquently recounted earlier in his experience as a former Minister of the Environment that there is still much to be done around this issue, I feel that it really is important for me to lend support to his efforts, as he concluded them in his other role, as well as to the current Minister of the Environment, the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. It is absolutely incumbent upon the members here to preserve our natural heritage, and that natural heritage is definitely reflected in the Niagara Escarpment.

I really do also want to thank the member for Mississauga South for her comments, again, a very eloquent and articulate speech, as she has shown herself to be on many occasions in the last few days. But this topic is one that is also close to my heart and I do want to recognize a few of the people in my area who have been working very hard to ensure that the Niagara Escarpment is maintained, if not in fact expanded. There is a Brock heritage area, which is just below Brock University, which they have been working very hard to maintain. The hardwood forest that exists there is one that really is integral to the whole plan and I will be working with this group to make sure we can preserve that particular area.

I do also believe, as the member for Mississauga South said, that the efforts of the member for Carleton should also be recognized, because it was with great foresight that a previous Conservative government did in fact create something that has preserved the natural heritage of this province. It really must be commended. It was hard work and, I understand, something of an uphill battle. I also recognize that within the Conservative caucus at the present time there will be some heated debate around this particular issue in light of the fact that the member for Grey has some rather different concerns from those of the member for Mississauga South and the member for Carleton. But I do believe that the hard work of all members must be recognized, and I do believe that in the end the member for Grey can probably be brought to our side, to our thinking, to recognize that his area of Grey, in order to be the tourist area that he would truly like it to be, has to have a Niagara Escarpment Commission and a Niagara Escarpment to provide clean water and the kind of recreation areas that we have all enjoyed.

Mr Duignan: I will be brief too. I just want to lend my comments and congratulate the minister on this particular motion in preserving the Niagara Escarpment Commission and for her attempts to enhance the Niagara Escarpment and preserve it for our children and their children and make sure that the land and the escarpment stay in their natural state.

I wish too to congratulate the member for Mississauga South, the member for St Catharines-Brock, the member for St Catharines and indeed the member for Carleton for the work they have done in the past in helping to preserve the Niagara Escarpment.

Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections.

Hon Mr Cooke: Can I just make some opening comments? As I said last week when I introduced this legislation, the purpose is to make Ontario's municipal election process more accessible to more people and to make campaign fund-raising and spending more accountable. I would like to take a minute to go over some of the provisions of this bill.

One very important provision will give homeless people the same right to vote and run for local government office as anyone else. I know the Liberal critic already warned me that her comment on that will be too that we need to provide housing and I certainly agree, and I would like to have seen more progress achieved over the last few years. But I hope that we will be able to work together to develop strategies to provide that housing for -- up to 20,000 homeless people in Toronto is one of the estimates.

Currently, eligibility to vote in municipal elections is based on residency, which is defined in terms of a fixed, permanent lodging place. This definition disfranchises homeless people. The bill will expand the definition of residence. The residency of homeless people will be defined in terms of where they most frequently sleep and eat. Homeless people will not be enumerated in the same way as other electors, but they will have the same opportunity to add their names to the list of electors during the revision period and on polling day.

Our legislation will also make it easier for students and residents of psychiatric hospitals to vote. The amendment will require a supplementary enumeration in September of each election year that will cover on-campus residents of universities and college residences and psychiatric facilities. The supplementary data will be treated as an addition to the preliminary list of electors during the revision period.

Several other amendments will make the local government election process more accessible. Municipalities will be allowed to pass a bylaw to provide visually impaired voters with ballots they can use. These could be notched ballots or templates. While visually impaired voters will still be able to get assistance from the deputy returning officers in marking their ballots, alternative ballots would give them the same degree of privacy as other voters.

Municipalities will also be permitted to pass bylaws to publish election-related information in languages other than English, depending on the linguistic makeup of the community. This will allow municipalities to keep people better informed leading up to the election and may result in higher voter turnouts.

One other amendment is aimed at improving accessibility for the physically disabled voters. The Election Amendment Act in 1988 required that all polling places be accessible to the physically disabled voters in 1991. That allowed municipalities to have a three-year period in which to prepare. Our legislation will give the clerk the power to requisition space in private dwellings of 100 or more units and public facilities for use as polling places. This will provide a larger pool of potential polling places and will therefore make it easier for clerks to meet the requirements of the 1988 legislation.

Several of the amendments relate to campaign financing. The major change in this area relates to surplus campaign funds. This legislation will ensure that campaign funds can only be used for campaign purposes. No longer will candidates be able to keep campaign funds for personal use. Currently, most candidates can keep any campaign funds left over after the election. The amendment will require surplus campaign funds to be held in trust by the municipal clerk for the use by the candidate in the next election. They can also be used to help clear campaign debts from the previous election. Candidates who do not seek office in the next election forfeit these funds and they become the property of the local government jurisdiction. These provisions will now apply to part II of the act, as well as part III, which permits local government jurisdictions to offer tax rebates to campaign contributors.

Another change will raise the campaign fund-raising and spending threshold above which candidates must file a financial statement from $1,000 to $2,000. Candidates spending or raising less than $2,000 will be permitted to file a statutory declaration.

Yet another change will limit to $5,000 the total campaign contributions made by individuals, trade unions and corporations to all candidates seeking office in the same local government jurisdiction. Although there is now a limit of $750 on individual contributions to a single candidate, there is no aggregate limit. The effect of this change will be to reduce the overall influence of a single contributor or group of contributors on the municipal election process.

The legislation also removes from the individual electors the responsibility for enforcing campaign financing provisions in part II of the act and places that responsibility on the local government jurisdiction. The new enforcement mechanism will be a complaint-driven process. Upon receiving a complaint from an elector, the local government jurisdiction will be required to take the appropriate action. This could include a compliance audit, if necessary, or legal action, which could be undertaken by either the local government jurisdiction or the provincial Commission on Election Finances. The new rules will not remove any elector's right to undertake civil action if he or she wishes.

Finally, this legislation includes an amendment to the Municipal Act to clarify that council members must maintain their qualifications as electors through the entire term of office in order to retain their position on council.

2030

These changes are a result of extensive consultation. They will lead to an improved and more accessible municipal election process. Obviously, most of the suggestions and proposals in tonight's legislation were prepared by the previous government and a lot of work has gone into these amendments. I congratulate the former Minister of Municipal Affairs for pulling them together.

I would also invite members of the opposition parties, municipal councillors and electors, over the next three-year period as we get closer to the 1994 election, to offer further suggestions on reform. I believe that while these proposals go a long way to clearing up some of the difficulties under the current legislation, we have many more steps to take to improve the election process and to make sure that the voters of this province can have confidence in the integrity of the process at the municipal level.

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate in this debate, I would like to echo the comments of the minister and acknowledge both the extensive consultation that resulted in this piece of legislation, but also the work of Mr Sweeney, the former minister. He had an excellent relationship with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and municipal leadership right across this province.

This piece of legislation results from many, many hours of work and discussion. I think there was an understanding that the democratic election process is always under review and must always be reformed from time to time, and with a three-year term at the municipal level, it does offer an opportunity for the minister to have those discussions and determine how legislation should be updated in time for the next election.

It is essential that this be passed by 1 January in order that it can be in place for the elections next November. We will of course be supporting it as it is substantially a piece of Liberal legislation.

There were a couple of amendments that I would like to speak to. Before I do, I think it is important to note that this piece of legislation has over 100 clauses and each one of course is significant in and of its own right. It is about greater accountability, both for municipal financing as well as ensuring that everyone understands very clearly what the rules are. That is very important if the voters of this province are to have confidence and to understand the role and the opportunity that they have to participate fully in our democracy.

One of the concerns I have always had is that the turnout at the municipal level is in many cases significantly below some 30%. I would urge the minister, as we consider reform of the municipal election process, to consider that accessibility is one matter that is important, but participation is also extremely important, particularly in municipal elections. Perhaps this debate and this piece of legislation will give us an opportunity to let the people of this province know that next November 1991 will be a municipal election time, that this piece of legislation is available and that people can know what the procedures are, that they can run and raise money and that the Municipal Elections Statute Law Amendment Act will be in place so that everyone will be very clear about what the rules of procedure are. I think it will allow for greater accountability than what existed before the consultation with the former minister.

I know that some concern has been raised by some of the mayors of particularly large municipalities and some of the councillors who have to run across quite a large-sized municipality about the limit for contributions. I would put on the record and encourage the new minister to discuss with those people, particularly in large municipalities, who are finding extensive costs in campaigns in the thousands of dollars, who have suggested that perhaps in those places where the municipality is of a certain size -- we know that there is an extensive and significant difference between the needs of large municipalities and smaller municipalities -- he might discuss with them what might be an appropriate level of contributions for those people who are running in very large municipalities.

Clause 68(7)(a) and subsection 87(1) refer to a limit of a $750 maximum contribution. I know that some of the mayors have expressed some concerns about whether today, in 1991, as we head into the next election, that is a test of reasonableness. Certainly the costs are increasing. This is not in any way fixed to inflation and it should be reviewed. I would stress that this ensures that there is full, open accountability. There is greater involvement by the municipal councils. We feel that is extremely important.

I would say to the minister that there is much work to be done. There are some who are suggesting that not only amendments, but perhaps some significant changes to this act might come about in time for the election some three years from now.

Regarding the special enumeration, I know that municipalities are concerned about the added costs of special enumeration. I have assured them that when in opposition this New Democratic Party was very clear about the fact that it would make arrangements so that municipalities did not have to bear the burden of any additional costs. I am sure the minister will ensure that municipalities are fully compensated for any additional costs of special enumeration. I think we all agree that we want to have as full and complete an enumeration as possible. I know that from time to time there have been some discussions around the costs of permanent voters' lists, and those kinds of initiatives, I think, can be explored as well as the costs of ensuring that the municipalities have the resources they need to be able to do this job which they do so well.

The surplus funds under the Election Finances Act I believe is a particularly important and progressive reform. I want to say that I believe everyone feels that when a candidate raises money, the money that is raised should be for election purposes. It should be fully accountable. If there are any surpluses, it is absolutely appropriate that they be entrusted to the municipality. We believe this is a very important component of this legislation, because I think there were some instances of concern to many of us about how funds that were raised for campaign purposes were in fact being used.

As I complete the debate, I would again like to acknowledge the work of the former minister, Mr Sweeney. I would note, Mr Speaker, that a former colleague of yours from Scarborough, the critic for the NDP, once referred to Mr Sweeney as the most progressive Minister of Community and Social Services the province had ever seen and said that he had the most significant impact on social welfare reform in this province.

It was Mr Johnston who made those very kind remarks and I think everyone agreed that they were very appropriate remarks. I would point out that the contribution Mr Sweeney made as Minister of Municipal Affairs was also significant. It resulted in this important piece of legislation. We will be supporting this so that it can be in place and people can have the assurance and security of accountability, accessibility and integrity of the municipal election process.

2040

Mr Ferguson: To comment just very briefly, the proposed changes to this act certainly are not solely the responsibility of the ministry; in fact, the real unsung heroes are the clerks across the 839 municipal towns, villages and cities that have municipal elections.

I think we are addressing many of the concerns expressed by the association of clerks across Ontario through the amendments to the Municipal Elections Act. We certainly will be having a very open dialogue with them after the 19 November 1991 municipal elections. After all, they are the people who are on the front lines when it comes to municipal elections.

Only through their involvement can we address changes that have to be implemented within the guidelines. Through their involvement we also come up with a much fairer, much simpler system that makes it much easier for people to understand throughout the entire municipal elections process.

I think we have to recognize their efforts within this field and we certainly have to encourage them to continue their dialogue with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs so that any unforeseen circumstances that do come about, that perhaps no one may have imagined might have happened, can be corrected for the next municipal elections.

Mr Perruzza: I am pleased to see this legislation before us and I applaud the minister on his efforts to tighten up on some rules that in my view have needed to be tightened up for a considerable amount of time.

Having been a participant on the municipal scene and at the municipal level, I have been witness to some of the abuses in the electoral system now, where municipal councillors who are able to generate large amounts of money to fund their campaigns and then spend nominal sums or are acclaimed in the process, at the end of the day are able to pocket those moneys or proceed to buy fancy cars at the expense of the electorate.

It also provides a venue for developers, and specifically large developers, to essentially make very serious inroads with municipal politicians and municipal councillors in that regard. It certainly gives them ready access to the municipal planning process, where they gain enormous advantage over local communities and the average folk in the average community.

One only needs to look at the election expense forms filed by municipal politicians right across Metro to see the amounts of money that were pocketed by municipal politicians. I applaud the minister on this legislation. I think it is welcome and we should proceed farther in this regard.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am pleased to make comments on this bill. Our party will be supporting this bill in principle on second reading, but I have some serious concerns. As I have stated in the House before, I would hope that we would have some time for further input into this bill. I have three concerns I would like to discuss at this time.

The first concern is the change that would put 1,000 voters per poll rather then 350. This would be unsuitable for rural and northern ridings where there are small populations. Voters would have to travel much farther to vote, with higher gas prices. If the election is called in late fall, in the winter or in early spring, many voters may not go to the polls.

The second concern is the amendment that would not allow voters to sign up for proxy votes at the advance polling dates except in normal working hours. This would put more undue burden on many part-time residents to obtain proxy votes.

The third concern is the enumeration of the homeless. I have grave concerns that this will cause problems we will not be able to undo. I believe everyone should be able to vote but, as this bill is vague about how the homeless will be enumerated, I fear the process will cause vast problems. The bill puts the onus on the municipalities and I believe this is just downloading an Ontario government problem to the municipalities.

We will be bringing in amendments on these concerns at a later date.

Mr Sutherland: I want to take this opportunity to say a few words about how this bill affects students. As members may be aware, before I was elected to this House I was president of the students' council at the University of Western Ontario and I was also the vice-president, external, during the last municipal election campaign that occurred. I had the responsibility of trying to organize students and to get them involved in the municipal elections process. I think members of all three parties of this House would agree that we need to increase the participation rates in our municipal elections. However, it was extremely difficult in trying to get them organized because of the enumeration process.

If members remember, a great deal of the enumeration took place in May and a good number of people at Western switch residences after that time period. They were not in the city of London during the enumeration process. We attempted to try and get a lot more of them enumerated at the time of registration, but we found that our efforts were extremely difficult. In consulting with other university student councils, we found that the co-operation of various clerks in different municipalities varied depending on where the university or college was located.

I think this is a very good step in terms of helping students participate, helping our young people get involved in the political process and making it far easier for them to take on their democratic rights, and also in making sure that municipalities are dealing with issues that affect students in their areas, such as transit issues, housing issues, issues of trying to restrict housing and access to housing for students and other issues.

I want to compliment the ministry for this initiative and for taking into account the interests of students and helping to allow them to participate in the democratic process.

Mr Turnbull: We intend to support this bill in principle, but we have some concerns over the wording of subsection 67(5) of the act in subsection 41(2) of the bill with respect to the persons who are to act as proxy.

Bill 16 deletes the words that the proxy "may apply to the clerk" and substitutes the wording "shall appear before the clerk in person during normal office hours and complete an application in the prescribed form, including a statutory declaration that the person is the person appointed as a voting proxy."

My point of concern revolves around the fact that this change would have the effect of making proxies in cottage country municipalities travel twice to the municipality where they wish to vote, once to apply during the weekday and then again to vote, probably at the Saturday advance poll. This will effectively disfranchise many cottage owners at a time when we are endeavouring to empower the homeless. We will bring in an amendment to this bill.

2050

Mr McLean: I just wanted to comment briefly on Bill 16. I remember some time ago when the previous Minister of Municipal Affairs brought in a bill with about 42 amendments after about a week when it was initiated in committee. At that time we knew there were a lot of flaws in the bill and it was a major piece of legislation, and it proved to be that there were several flaws in the legislation. So I am glad to see that the minister is bringing in amendments to the act, because there are some concerns that have already been raised.

One of the major concerns I had with the last legislation had to do with proxy voting. There was quite a history about that in Wasaga Beach and Tiny Township -- I am sure there were others -- and I would hope that this bill would in some way help that process whereby people will still be allowed to have their vote and be able to have a proxy to do that.

In the bill with regard to the maximum number of eligible voters, from 350 to 1,000, does give me some concern. I would have anticipated perhaps 500 would be a more logical figure. There are probably some areas in the province where 1,000 would be all right, but to change it for all of the province, I have some reservations about it. With large cities, I think that may be fine, but if you could have less, then that is all right too. I presume the wording of the bill indicates to a maximum of 1,000. It may cover it in that area, but it is a concern that I have.

The other area is with regard to the homeless. When I looked at that section with regard to the qualifications that a person has to have in order to qualify for a vote, with regard to the five-week period and the most frequent place where this person or individual may sleep or eat, it certainly is going to be very hard, in my estimation, to define who is going to be eligible to vote there. It is going to be difficult to be able to realize how many times this one person could be enumerated. Some of them do move around a little bit. When you are looking at the immediate five weeks there can be a lot of changes.

As my colleague was talking about somebody sleeping underneath one of the bridges, where would he be in two months' time? That section is very hard and I am glad to see that they are getting the support, but I am sure I want it to be defined where there are 20,000 people in this province who will have the availability of a vote. Make sure that it is done properly.

Those are some of the major concerns that I have with that bill. A major bill of this magnitude should really be out in committee where we can have public hearings and the municipal people could have some input. I am wondering what input the municipal councils, the municipalities, AMO, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, have had into this piece of legislation. I find it unacceptable that we are to come in here and try to deal with this bill in one evening, a major piece with 100 clauses, and not have it go out to committee and have the municipal people in the province involved in it.

Mr Stockwell: I took exception to some degree to the suggestion by the member for Downsview that all the moneys raised over and above the amount spent were kept and bought lavish cars and so on and so forth. I think that could have happened certainly in some instances, maybe in the city that he ran in -- I am not certain; I cannot speak for sure. I know certainly there were some areas, especially in the city that I represented, where in fact more money was raised than was spent and funds were set up in that member's name to be used to benefit a wide range of people. Although the statement may have been intended for certain members he knows, not all were treated that way. I think it is unfair to suggest that all people treated their surpluses in that fashion.

The other concern I have is that if the government is going to legislate certain requirements to municipal candidates and ask them to file and go through a process very similar in nature to provincial candidates, I think the tax write-off should be a provincial one. If they are going to demand and dictate certain responsibilities that municipal candidates have to follow up with, then I think they should also absorb the costs involved.

Clearly, if one is a provincial or federal candidate, one would get certain tax write-offs when donations are made. In the case of some municipal politicians -- and I speak particularly of Metropolitan Toronto -- I know full well there are some wards in Metropolitan Toronto where the expenditures are in excess of the amount of money spent to run for the federal Parliament or the provincial Legislature, crazy as it may seem. I know the mayors of some of those cities spend in excess of $100,000 to get elected.

I think if the government is going to require these politicians at the municipal level to go through all the hoops and all the procedures that provincial candidates go through, with the assistance of riding associations and organizations and party affiliation, then the least it could do is allow the same tax write-offs to take place, paid for by the provincial level of government. The government is asking them to go through these hoops yet is not prepared to give them the same opportunity to write off the expenses.

The other point that I think needs to be made is that in certain municipal wards in some cities -- with respect to the point that was made as far as enumerating the homeless -- my only concern is that there could be some difficulty with respect to the credibility of the system. I think it is a bold move. It is the kind of thing everyone would like to see happen, that everybody in a democratic country will be allowed to vote and exercise that option. But I have some serious reservations as to how the government is going to determine exactly where this person is voting and how many times this person may in fact vote.

In Etobicoke and the city of Toronto, I know for certain that movement can be daily, let alone five weeks. I do not know, by enumerating, how the enumerators are going to determine that this person lives there. There could be some very serious flaws in this. Those flaws can throw a whole election out if there are three or four legitimate complaints. I know, having been through a municipal recount, that going to the courts, you just have to show one or two small errors and you can get a full recount, which is a very costly process. So I would be very interested to see how this works.

Those are my two concerns. Clearly the more important concern is that if the government is going to dictate to municipal candidates exactly how they may raise money, whom they may raise money from, how they report that process by which they raised the money, and it puts them through basically the same hoops it puts provincial candidates through, then it should be allowing them the same tax break, the same tax credit that provincial members take advantage of themselves. I think that is a very big complaint from municipal candidates, and I know because that was the complaint when I was running.

2100

Mr Jackson: I have a couple of areas of concern that I wanted to address which flow partially from my experience in municipal politics, with five or six elections, and my three or four elections here in the Legislature.

I first of all want to comment to the member for Oxford, who referenced his concern for students and access to voting and improvements to enumeration. I also want to indicate that I was hoping he would have addressed the larger issue, and that is the timing of provincial elections which militate against the appropriate access for students. That may have been a simple oversight, because I know he has expressed concern.

It strikes me that it was a rather strategic move on the part of the previous government to disfranchise thousands of university students by virtue of the timing of the last two provincial elections. We certainly do not wish to disfranchise those students in any way, shape or form, but if the bill hopes to deal with the issue of access, had this bill gone to committee we might have gotten closer to some arrangement which indicated that only under certain very rare circumstances could an election be called within a very narrow range of time frames which specifically adversely impact students.

I want to comment on another area and that is in the explanatory notes the minister did not deal at length with, the issue of the maximum number of electors and polling being increased from 350 to 1,000 electors. Again, I am trying to draw a parallel here between what happens provincially, which is of interest to all members in this House, and what happens municipally. We certainly do not want to have a double standard. We use provincial funds to have provincial elections, but we are creating rules for municipal councils to spend municipal taxpayer dollars to conduct elections.

I was very distressed to learn that in the last election the Liberals had secretly instructed returning officers to reduce the total number of polls in provincial ridings across this province. This was done in a manner in which it could be reasonably argued that it was attempted in a secretive way. When I caught wind of it, we certainly made representations to ensure access for the disabled and for senior citizens.

I recognize that the minister responsible for senior citizens' affairs is in the House this evening and I hope she will be sensitive to this point, because we are setting out in legislation an opportunity for clerks to take polling stations out of seniors' residences, which they have become accustomed to. I need not remind members of the House that we legislate the timing of our municipal elections and it has been known to be rather cold and inclement. Our seniors very much rely on easy access.

I wish the Minister of Municipal Affairs would listen carefully. He indicated that he embraced many of the recommendations from the Liberals. That should be a signal for him to be cautious when he is proceeding with this legislation.

Hon Mr Cooke: It could be worse. I could take yours.

Mr Jackson: I assume then that he is partially listening to the kinds of concerns I am expressing from the residents of my riding, who take very seriously all opportunities to ensure that they have an opportunity to vote. They take their voting very seriously in Burlington.

I guess the biggest surprise in this legislation is that we have, on the one hand, the Minister of Municipal Affairs talking about municipal elections, but he also wears another hat. He wears the hat of Minister of Housing. Occasionally these roles come in conflict with each other, and nowhere have I seen this more strikingly presented than in his presentation of this bill. Imagine the Minister of Housing, responsible for creating housing in this province, the one member of the Privy Council responsible for helping homeless people, admitting that one year from now and again four years from now, there are going to be enough homeless people in this province that, "By God, if we can't find them a roof over their heads, we're sure going to let them vote."

If this government were serious about assisting the homeless in this province, it would not be preoccupied with giving them a vote when they will not get an opportunity to exercise it. It should be looking at those barriers for the homeless who do not have access to an Ontario drug benefit card because of the need to establish residence, who do not have access to medical benefits because they do not have the ability to establish residence in order to receive some income guarantees for basic existence. They do not have those rights. But this government is going to make sure that if they wander into a polling station, they are going to have the right to vote. I am rather disappointed that the very minister responsible for dealing with homelessness in this province, his first official act dealing with this important issue is to say, "You will be able to pick which alderman and which school trustee you are going to vote for."

I might be moving a bit off topic if I suggest that this legislation was somewhat of a surprise. It really was not referenced in the throne speech. I did not see a commitment to the homeless in the throne speech.

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: I say to the member for Chatham-Kent, we know that the Agenda for People was never really meant to be implemented. I will give the minister that much of a margin. We also know that it really was not addressed in the throne speech. These have been established. But what we do measure a government by is by its legislation. That is before us. That will become the law, not the Agenda for People.

I simply wanted to --

Interjection.

Mr Jackson: I am pleased that the member for Chatham-Kent wishes to go to the Agenda for People since he wishes me to respond to it, because the Agenda for People had a lot to say about a lot of things, but nowhere are we getting a commitment for the construction of those rental units to eradicate many of the problems of homelessness in this province.

The minister seems to think that when he talks later this evening on Bill 4, he will be doing something meaningful for the poor people of this province. By his own admission, about 45% of the tenants in apartment buildings in this province are paying greater than 30% of their income. By his own definition, they cannot afford the housing they are in. So why does a limit of a 5% increase in any way address the issue of people who are being evicted economically from their residences? We know the poor have the highest mobility rates in apartments because of the increases and the current levels of rents, especially in the large urban centres like Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton and Windsor.

In conclusion, I want to just reaffirm my concerns that this legislation should be a guide for this government when dealing with future provincial elections so that it does not offend the rights of students; that explanatory note 13, which talks about allowing municipalities to increase the size of polling subdivisions, does not disfranchise thousands of senior citizens who have grown accustomed to having their polling locations in very close proximity to their residences, and finally that the minister responsible for homelessness start building some housing instead of making sure that at least they have the opportunity to vote in a province that cannot help them find housing.

2110

Hon Mr Cooke: I will just take a couple of moments. First of all, I want to thank the honourable members for participating -- this is really difficult -- and I want to recognize that there were a couple of comments that I certainly agree with.

I agree with the critic of the Liberal Party that the participation rate is too low in municipal elections and that is obviously one of the focuses of this bill, to try not to come up with the reasons why people should not be on voters' lists but to try to come up with ways and mechanisms to get more people to participate, whether they are students or whether they are homeless people.

I certainly understand the concern that a couple of members have mentioned about the number of voters in each of the polling stations. I should point out that we are not really comparing the same types of elections, provincial and municipal. There are many municipalities that are now using voting machines, and that is the purpose of this amendment. It is very costly for municipalities, and voting machines can process large numbers of voters.

The amendment that we are proposing says to a local municipality that it can decide how many voters are in each of its polling stations. I certainly agree with the philosophy that the member for Burlington South has indicated on many occasions, that local municipalities should have the ability to make the decisions at the local level instead of having them imposed at the provincial. However, if the Conservative Party brings forward an amendment, we would certainly be glad to consider it. As I understand, they will be bringing forward an amendment.

I just want to say one thing about the whole issue of whether homeless people should be able to participate. I would like to indicate to the member from Etobicoke that the rules we are suggesting in this legislation are no different than the rules that currently exist on election day for him or me. Anybody, whether a homeless person or anyone else in the community, can walk into a polling station on election day. They can indicate what their address is and they can vote. The rules are exactly the same.

As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I certainly have no intention of saying that just because an individual is homeless he will have a different motivation for participating in a municipal election than anyone else. There certainly are rules in place, laws in place that allow people to vote, and I think homeless people should be allowed to participate.

If there is one disappointment in this very short debate that we had this evening, both as Minister of Housing and as Minister of Municipal Affairs, I cannot let one incident during the debate this evening go by without a mention. When the member for Simcoe East was talking about the homeless issue, the kinds of references and the laughter that took place within the Conservative caucus I think demonstrate a lack of understanding of this particular issue. I do not think it was appropriate.

Mr Carr: You don't even know what we were laughing about. Cheap shot.

Hon Mr Cooke: I know exactly what you were laughing at. I think what we have to do --

Interjections.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has imputed motive to a sidebar comment that he neither heard nor understood. If he is going to impute motive, I can indicate that during many of the discussions about the poor in the debate he had the audacity to turn away and talk to other members. We do not impute motive in this House in an offensive manner the way the minister has just done. I ask him to withdraw.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would be glad to withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): It is against the rules to impute motives and the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs has withdrawn.

Hon Mr Cooke: When we get to that section of the act, I will attempt to answer questions with regard to how the process will operate. As I indicated earlier, the rules in terms of people being able to walk into polling stations on election day will be no different for homeless people than for any other people in our community.

I hope there will be some efforts by municipalities, like that of Toronto, to involve more homeless people when we enumerate. Perhaps there will even be voting stations in some of the community centres in Toronto and other larger communities that homeless people take advantage of in order to have shelter in communities like Toronto.

I appreciate the participation and the support on second reading and I look forward to going into committee of the whole on Monday, I believe.

2148

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion for second reading of Bill 16, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes -- 90

Abel, Akande, Allen, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Carr, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jackson, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard;

Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Mahoney, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Poole, Ramsay, Silipo, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays -- 0

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel had the floor upon adjournment.

Mr Tilson: I rise on second reading debate of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986. As members will gather from the numerous questions that I and other members of our party here have asked in this House, this party has grave concerns over the proposed legislation.

To be blunt, it is unfair, it is punitive and it is contrary to this government's stated desire to be fair and just. Moreover, it reveals that despite the cooing noises made by the Premier and Treasurer towards the business sector of this province, the NDP government is still driven by doctrinaire dogma when it comes to housing policy. Worse than even that, Bill 4 lacks consistency because it contains certain retroactive provisions and is, I submit, plainly bad law.

I can appreciate this government's desire to reform the current system of rent review. I honestly believe that they are trying to reform the existing system. It was implemented by the former Liberal government, which implementation makes absolutely nobody happy. Tenants and landlords equally hate it. It is a bureaucratic nightmare costing taxpayers $40 million to administer. But why, when we have learned how not to protect tenants and treat owners, are we once again setting out to be unfair, inequitable and unjust?

Let's start by looking at the minister's own words in announcing this government's intention to introduce Bill 4. Allow me to quote his statement from the House, which was made on 28 November last. At that time the Minister of Housing stated:

"Under the moratorium, tenants will no longer be required to pay rent increases to finance luxury renovations or the flipping of apartment buildings. As well, tenants will not face rent increases arising from capital expenditures."

That statement was made by the minister, as I said, on 28 November last.

Consider the emphasis the minister places on flips and luxury renovations. It is as if all landlords ever do is flip buildings and install marble lobbies. The minister knows that is simply not true. However, in the New Democratic Party's simplistic world of villains and good guys, tenants are the oppressed while landlords are the oppressors.

The notion that roofs leak and need repair, the possibility that boilers break down and require replacement, and that occasionally, just occasionally, there are badly needed renovations which actually benefit tenants simply does not conform with the NDP's set view of housing issues. In the NDP's narrow little dogmatic world, tenants are always the miserable exploitees while landlords are the compulsively greedy exploiters.

Let's take a closer look at what this bad legislation actually does. For one thing it cancels all phased-in rent increases taking effect on 1 October 1990 or later, simply cancels them. But at the same time as it fails to recognize the validity of properly awarded phased-in rent increases after 1 October, it allows tenants to pay amounts owing landlords under still valid older orders in 12 monthly instalments. Fair enough, and I applaud the government in permitting tenants this particular break. I do applaud them. But on what possible basis does this minister simply cancel phased-in increases after 1 October? What basis does he have to do that? On the one hand he is being fair to tenants, but on the other hand he is being unfair to apartment owners. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity?

As one looks at this legislation, it is abundantly clear that retroactivity means one thing when it is applied to tenants, while it means quite another when it impacts apartment owners.

There is another aspect to this proposed legislation that is to be deplored. At first glance, it would appear that the NDP's new age of rent control begins 1 October, the day the government took office. How symbolic; how appropriate. They nearly pulled off the illusion of logic by invoking the 1 October date, but not quite.

While it is true that the old rules will apply to applications with the first effective date on or before 1 October, the minister knows full well, and the people of the province deserve to know, that a landlord must apply three months before the first effective date. In short, the application must have been in the system on or before 1 July 1990 to avoid being zapped by this bill. So the operative date is not 1 October, but actually three months earlier. Where is the fairness? Where is the equity?

Permit me for a moment to deal with another issue, whether apartment owners should pay for renovations through their rents. This is what the minister has proposed. Judging from the responses this minister has made to a series of questions in this House from this side of the House, he will no doubt want to ask me where it is fair and equitable that tenants should pay for the lack of proper maintenance on the part of their landlord. I know that he took particular delight in asking me the other day whether I thought the tenants should pay for plaster.

It was a nice try, but once again he missed the point. The point is that 80% of Ontario's rental housing stock was constructed prior to 1975; it is not aging well and his own ministry projects that $10 billion in renovations and repairs are needed to maintain and restore the current stock. Given that it is infinitely less expensive to work with what we have as opposed to building from scratch, I believe that even this minister would have to concede that money for repairs and maintenance is well spent. But it must come from somewhere and unless he is simply dead set against private ownership of rental housing stock, a positive climate for private investment in the housing market must be encouraged and allowed to exist.

2200

That is not to say that tenants should be stuck for paying for marble lobbies, and he should know better than to cite abuses which clearly are deplored by all sides of the House, and we do. That is not to say that we condone a marketplace or a situation which encourages and rewards so-called flips. We do not condone these and he knows it.

If the minister would abandon his ideology for a moment, he would realize that there is a middle ground which is both fair and equitable to landlords and tenants. I fear, however, that if in a moment of lucid thought this minister actually recognized that compromise could work, his rather narrow view of the world would be shattered.

Allow me to refer the minister and this House to a letter sent to him by the Bretton Place Tenants Association. This letter was addressed to him and is dated 8 November 1990. This is from a tenants' association that has developed a close working relationship with the various property managers of its complex over the years. I am sure he is aware of them. Indeed, I understand that they might have turned their own building into a condominium several years ago had legislation not been introduced to bring an end to such conversions.

In any event, I know the idea of tenants getting along with their landlord probably does not sit well with the minister and is in fact a threat to his view of the world, but it does happen. It is not just all class struggle.

In their letter to him they point out that they have worked with the owner-managers to come up with a reasonable list of items in need of repair.

I would like to quote from that letter: "Our resident group recognizes that buildings that are 25 years old need work that will maintain their physical integrity." The letter goes on to state: "As you can see, we have an excellent working relationship and do not have an adversarial situation that perhaps the Federation of Metro Tenants implies is the case within the province. The Federation of Metro Tenants does not represent this complex nor does it represent many of the apartment complexes in the province."

As galling as that may seem to him and members of his government, that is what one group of tenants had to say recently.

Allow me to touch on some other aspects of this bill that cause our party some concern.

The minister will recall that I asked him what studies have been done in support of this legislation. Specifically, I wanted to know whether this government had undertaken a cost-benefit analysis or knew the extent to which this bill would trigger economic hardship. I got the very distinct impression from his answers in the House that this government had done its homework.

When I returned to my office that afternoon, I immediately wrote to the minister restating my desire to see what documentation lay behind this bill and I still have not received it. I asked it again in a question several days ago. I asked again: Where is this impact study? Where is this legal opinion?

My staff followed up that letter several days later with a phone call to the minister's office and, as I have indicated, to date we have seen nothing. I assume it does not exist unless it is another secret report.

How can one expect this government to have an honest economic assessment of the impact of its rental policy? I do not think one could be produced. I do not think he has even studied this matter.

Let's look at some of the fallout that is occurring, and some of these have been referred to in questions in the past. I refer specifically to a newspaper article in the Toronto Star of 1 December 1990, which indicates a number of situations. Mercury Electrical Products of Concord could lose $1.5 million or one quarter of its sales. Layoffs would follow. Regal Aluminum Ltd, and Regal Railings Inc, also of Concord, has laid off over half of its 200 employees after cancellation of $5 million worth of orders for windows, doors and railings. Wind-o-Mart Ltd, same story; loss of $2 million in orders, maybe more.

There are stories of layoffs of plumbers and electricians. My phone has not stopped ringing and I am sure the phone of the minister has not stopped ringing. My fax has nearly suffered a meltdown, as I am sure his has, with all the letters we have received. I have a few of them here. I do not have all of them, but I have a few of them. I would like to review several of them.

I would like to refer to a letter from Structural Contracting Ltd dated 6 December 1990. This is addressed to the Minister of Housing:

"As a contractor who specializes in the restoration of apartment buildings, your announcement November 30, 1990, restricting rent increases came as a complete shock to me and many others in this business.

"Our work primarily involves the restoration of parking garages that have deteriorated due to de-icing salts which are spread on our roads throughout the winter months by the Ministry of Transportation.

"In our company alone, this industry has created employment for approximately 50 men throughout the year, with wages that vary from $13 to $16 per hour. These were not McJobs. These were well-paying construction jobs that provided opportunity and prosperity for many unskilled workers who would otherwise be unemployed, or stuck in positions at or slightly above the minimum wage. Your proposed legislation will force us to reduce our workforce to 10 from 50.

"The service we provide for landlords is not a luxury or a frill. Deteriorating parking structures and balconies is well documented and understood by most experts to be a monumental problem that also affects condominiums, hotels, airports, hospitals etc. If these problems go unchecked it will lead to further deterioration leading to garage closures for fear of collapse or possible harm to tenants. Unlike repairs or replacement of drywall, wall-paper, kitchens, windows or appliances that can be held off indefinitely, deterioration of concrete in a parking garage or a balcony must be repaired immediately. Delaying repairs not only increases the chances of failure, but also increases the final cost due to the nature in which concrete deterioration in parking structures spreads.

"There is well-documented evidence to prove that this problem relating to parking structures was not brought to the forefront until the late 1970s and early 1980s. Since most of the apartment buildings we have worked on are 15 years and older, it is unfair to penalize landlords for a problem they did not create. Landlords could not have planned for this problem, and as such should be compensated for work required to upgrade the parking garages and balconies to a safe and secure manner.

"Failure on your part to arrive at a suitable compromise with the landlords will result in a deteriorating housing stock and massive layoffs at a time when the economy can least afford it."

That was signed by Structural Contracting Ltd.

2210

Here is another letter. This is from Mark Henderson of 479 Burlington Avenue in Burlington and is dated 8 December. I am only going to refer to part of this letter, just to express its general tone and concern. It is addressed to the Minister of Housing:

"The moratorium on rent increases which you announced a week ago is a clear indication that the rent control problem is presently beyond your ability to solve, just as it was beyond the Liberals' ability to solve....

"When I became a landlord in 1987 I did not volunteer to become a one-man social assistance agency. However, that is exactly what the present system is doing. The government wants rents to be cheap, so in my fourplex I am subsidizing the rents regardless of their income by $1,600 per month. Is this fair? Where is the justice in this? Why am I being bankrupted by a government which refuses to acknowledge that it is responsible for subsidizing housing in Ontario, not me?

"You clearly need help formulating a rental policy. When you entered your ministry I read reports that you said you were going to listen to tenants and landlords and come up with a policy which was fair to both. Did you really listen to landlords? You cannot be 'just' to tenants by being 'unjust' to landlords...."

That is a letter which goes on for several pages, and I will only read those few excerpts.

Here is another letter. It is from Edrich-Terlin Management, which is a constituent of Mississauga South, from 70 Park Street East, Mississauga. It is signed by Stanley J. Fay, the president of this company, and this is addressed to me:

"Dear Mr Tilson:

"Please help us to stop the new NDP government rent control legislation from passing. It will eliminate 150 badly needed jobs in this company alone plus many, many others like ourselves.

"It is wrong at any time, but especially now when jobs are so badly needed."

Another letter is from Andrade Associates Ltd, 40 Sheppard Avenue West, North York. It is signed by Mark Henderson of that corporation, and it is dated 7 December last and addressed to me. I will only read one line: "It is clear that the government's proposal is both draconian and retroactive and could bankrupt many small property owners."

That is the general tone throughout the province. That is the type of response we have been getting, and I am sure the minister has been getting the same type of letter and the same type of telephone call. I am not even going to repeat the telephones calls, there have been so many.

Here is another letter. This is addressed to the leader of our party, the member for Nipissing. It is from Triple "R" Roofing Ltd, 8 Walnut Crescent, Toronto. It is signed by Gerry Turner, the president of that corporation:

"Dear Mr Harris:

"I have been in the industrial and commercial roofing business for a period of four years. The majority of our work has been performed for property management companies on behalf of their clients.

"Triple 'R' Roofing Ltd has employed, on average, 10 people per year, with annual sales of $1,200,000.

"Our business averages a 6% net profit before taxes, so I am sure you understand that all we have really been able to do is provide employment for 10 people and a salary for myself and family."

He goes on:

"When your government lost the election to the NDP we also lost approximately $250,000 worth of business and have continued to lose another $250,000 of business.

"On 30 November 1990, for the first time since I have been in business, I had to lay off all my employees. This is all due to the fact that David Cooke's housing policies have caused my clients to stop spending money on their roofing projects.... I now have 10 unemployed employees who have rent control but no paycheque to pay the rent, and will now have to claim UIC benefits."

That is another example of what this bill is causing.

I would like to refer to another letter, which is addressed to the Minister of Housing. This is dated 4 December 1990 and is signed by Donald J. Bannister. I will not read the whole letter, just pertinent sections of it:

"As an owner of a small six-suite residential building in Toronto, I am outraged at your blatant lack of concern for my position, as well as your shortsighted, ill-conceived and fundamentally stupid approach at solving the housing problem.

"This year I spent $13,000 improving my 75-year-old property by replacing the original windows and oil boiler which had reached the end of their life, and understanding that I could recover my costs by making an application and receiving a legitimate increase in rents. Instead now I have voluntarily filed my rents with the rent registry and my rent review application to recover my costs is now invalid."

He continues by saying: "Your policy is irrational, unfair, discriminatory and in the long run will harm the people you are trying to help."

Here is another letter. This letter was referred to me by the Leader of the Opposition; in it is an offer to sell to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario: "Province of Ontario, you can have my building. You can purchase my building, and at a bargain-rate basement price of $4.7 million." This is from the Siksay Group Ltd. It is addressed to the Minister of Housing and it is dated 29 November 1990. Again, I will only read portions of this letter.

"Re: Rent control in Ontario:

"The Siksay Group Ltd is the owner of a 47-unit apartment buildings in Oshawa....

"We view your present policy initiative as so regressive and shortsighted that we have decided to offer our building for sale to the government of Ontario. If you want to be in control of the rental housing sector in Ontario, here's your real chance to get your feet wet. This offer is contingent, however, on the Minister of Housing becoming responsible for the day-to-day operations of the building in question over a 10-year period so that he or she may experience first hand the challenge of adequately maintaining an older and decaying residential building complex within the confines of the rent control system in Ontario.

"It is also contingent upon the minister operating the building on a profit basis (as public sector landlords do), showing a return on the government's investment at least equal to the return the government would receive on identical funds deposited in the most lucrative interest-bearing account, term deposit or guaranteed investment certificate, and making the financial statements in respect of the operation of the building available to the public forthwith after the conclusion of each fiscal year. If the rent control system which you propose for Ontario really can work, here's your chance to show us all."

The time has come. That offer was irrevocable until 10 December and it appears that the minister did not take up the Siksay Group's offer, although it has not been revoked. The offer has not been revoked and it may well be that if the government is lucky it may be able to get this bargain building.

2220

Here is another letter. This is from Day Restorations Inc, 2 Brentcliffe Road, Toronto. It is signed by James F. Day, who presumably is the president of the corporation. Again, I will only read portions of the letter. It is addressed to me.

"Dear Mr Tilson:

"I operate a contracting company that performs structural repairs and maintenance to the exterior walls of buildings. I have been in business since 1974.

"On Wednesday 28 November, I had 35 employees. On Thursday 29 November, I was forced to lay off one half of my staff....

"Typically, over the last three years, approximately half of my business has come from the apartment building market....

"Over the last year I have invested heavily in new equipment. With a reduced income, I will have difficulty meeting the debt on this equipment....

"The effect of this legislation is devastating, throwing thousands of people out of a job. It takes away incentive from tenants to move up and invest in a house."

I think that is a crucial issue and I hope the minister will reconsider his bill.

I have a further letter that is addressed to me. It is dated 6 December 1990. It is from Parkway Realty Ltd.

Interjection.

Mr Tilson: I think that is the problem. I think the member considers it a laughing matter, which is unfortunate. This is probably one of the most serious pieces of legislation this government has introduced, and these letters show the terrible, devastating effect it is having on the economy of this province. It is causing unemployment. It is causing a lack of initiative. It is causing bankruptcies.

"Dear Mr Tilson:

"I am a landlord who was caught by the NDP rent control amendment in the middle of renovating two 25-year-old apartment buildings.... I have already invested $650,000 in necessary repairs, such as new elevators, new roofs, new outdoor lighting, an $80,000 card-entry security system to protect tenants from robberies, newly repaved parking lots and more. We have done no unnecessary repairs.

"We did this work in good faith under existing laws of Ontario. We trusted the legislative process. We followed these laws, invested our family funds and now the laws have been torn up retroactively. Can this really happen?

"The NDP has discredited the legislative process in Ontario and has brought disrepute to the legal process.

"For 15 years, we have been called all manner of names by all parties. We have been portrayed as rich, greedy, gouging, whatever names suited the provincial politician at a political rally. But no matter what is said about us, we are still citizens of Ontario. We are still investors in Ontario. We are entitled to protection under the law.

"If the NDP is permitted to make a retroactive cancellation of existing legislation, then no investor, local or foreign, will trust Ontario laws. A law which can be changed retroactively is no law. It is the law of the jungle. Who would ever want to take a chance with their life savings to invest in Ontario again?...

"If we landlords are doomed, then so are all Ontarians. For the sake of law and order, for the sake of all Ontarians, help restore faith to the legislative process. Oppose this retroactive legislation."

That is signed by the president of Parkway Realty Ltd.

A letter dated 6 September, addressed to me, is from Columbia Windows Ltd, 131 Carlauren Road, Woodbridge.

"We wonder whether the NDP government realizes what they have done with their recent decision.

"Do they know that they have put thousands of Ontarians out of jobs with their decision, many of these people tenants?

"Do they know that several companies are facing going bankrupt as the result of their decision?

"What should the people do who are being put out of a job? Collect unemployment, apply for welfare or go out on the streets and commit crimes to feed their families?...

"Maybe the NDP government wants all Ontarians to be on welfare."

The minister got these letters. I do not imagine he probably even responded to them. I will be interested to see if he did.

This letter dated 9 December is from Peter Miller and addressed to me.

"I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed NDP rent freeze legislation and the negative effect it will have on the residential rental industry....

"It is a sad state of affairs when the government tries to change the rules for things done four months previously....

"In my view, a rent freeze means a renovation freeze....

"In my case, my wife and I purchased a 12-unit building at 200 Louisa Street in Kitchener, which is 25 years old....

"The building and appliances are wearing out and replacing a few items interested the tenants in new appliances, carpets and flooring and a vacant apartment was given the complete treatment in September 1990. The cost for one apartment was just over $2,500. With the proposed legislation, the remaining 11 tenants must do without as there will be no money to carry out the work. The tradesmen and the suppliers will also lose the work and sales."

I have another letter from Vicky Micallef, 4 Upland Road, Toronto. It is a letter dated 8 December and it is addressed to me. Again, I will just read the latter portion of this letter.

"The problem is that no landlord blessed with the mental capacity to perform simple arithmetic will invest any capital in his/her property if the maximum return is as low as the ceiling proposed under the legislation. The result for our province will be slums identical to those found in fair cities like New York.

"If the Premier and the Housing minister believe that their legislation is such a good idea and it offers a fair return on investment, let them persuade their union friends to invest their large pools of capital in housing."

That is not such a bad idea.

A letter from a firm called Andrade Associates Ltd. It is dated 7 December. I will just read the last paragraph. It refers to a report which he sent to the firm's clients.

"What was not included in my report is the fact that more than $60 million of our clients' money stands to be lost because of the retroactive nature of the proposed moratorium. This money represents the value of necessary major repairs which were undertaken prior to the minister's announcement and for which applications were made commencing 1 October or later."

Here is a letter from Cohen Melnitzer, solicitors in London. It is signed by Joseph J. Hoffer of that firm and it refers to the proposed amendments to rent review legislation. Again, I will read excerpts from that letter.

"In its present form, the proposed legislation purports to wipe out, retroactively, legal and equitable rights which have been accrued to property owners acting under existing legislation.

"I can provide you with examples of landlords who reviewed the current rent control system and held meetings with their tenants to discuss proposed necessary capital expenditures. The landlord further gave disclosure to the tenants of the approximate amount of cost together with the amount of the rent increase anticipated in the future; all of these steps were taken in strict compliance with, and reliance on, existing legislation. These landlords then spend tens of thousands of dollars to make the improvements they said they would make (none of which were so-called 'luxury' expenditures) and filed application under existing rent control legislation....

"Mr Cooke and Mr Rae now purport to retroactively eliminate these landlords' vested rights to rent increases by imposing a rent freeze on these landlords.

"Some landlords will be bankrupt if this legislation is passed. Others will lose their buildings to lending institutions that have no interest in owning rental property.

"On behalf of the tenants and property owners, kindly urge the Rae government not to impose retroactive legislation on property owners, and I so urge you."

2230

I have another letter dated 7 December, which is addressed to myself from the Philmor Group. They are from Willowdale, 47 Sheppard Avenue East. I will just read a few lines, signed by Eddie Gilbert.

An hon member: A good place to come from, Willowdale.

Mr Tilson: Yes, at the moment it is.

"We had an outside building consultant advise us as to what was necessary to effect the repairs properly and we ended up spending $270,000 to fix these items. Under the proposed legislation, we are being told that these repairs cannot be passed on to the tenants.... The windows in this building are wood frame, single glazed and totally ineffective. We had plans to replace them in 1991 for approximately $280,000, but will not do the work if we cannot increase rents to cover our additional costs.... Thousands of jobs will be lost in the construction and renovation industry, as well as those who supply the industry."

I have a letter from Guelph -- these letters are from all over the province -- from a Morris Haley. It is dated 7 December and it is a very brief paragraph:

"This retroactive legislation has destroyed my trust of fair play with this government. How can I make future decisions based on the existing law with the knowledge it may later be adversely changed? A bad precedent would be set."

I think that is the problem that the members are going to have to realize, that by implementing this law they are going to lose the trust of the people of Ontario. They may have lost that trust already, but clearly it is not too late.

A letter dated 7 December 1990 from MCI Properties Inc of London. Ray McNally is the president, he signed the letter. He says:

"I am the owner of a 115-unit 25-year-old apartment building in London. Twenty-five per cent of my tenants have asked that their fridges and stoves be replaced. They have put their requests to me in writing and they are prepared to pay a small rent increase according to the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

"My problem, of course, is that the proposed NDP rent control legislation will not allow our collective efforts to materialize. With a 15% increase in operating costs for 1991 (gas, electricity, municipal taxes, supplies etc), the goods and services tax and only a 5.4% increase, I'll be very lucky to keep a dry, warm roof over my tenants' heads.

"I hope this idiotic housing philosophy deteriorates faster than Ontario's rental stock.

"Good luck in your fight."

I have a letter from a chartered accountant, Earl I. Grossman, who is from Toronto, 15 Stormont Avenue. This is a letter addressed to the Premier. I will read two paragraphs.

"This writer was quite shocked to read the recent pronouncement freezing rent increases to bare operating costs. We were about to approve contracts totalling approximately $300,000 to remedy outstanding work orders, replace carpets, repaint inside and out.... We have not applied to rent review, but certainly intended to. We estimate that such an application would result in a 10% increase....

"You have publicly rebuked landlords who incur costs in order to effect rent increases of 30% to 60%." This party does that as well, I might add. "We agree that there may be instances of abuse, but the paintbrush approach you have taken prejudices the huge majority of landlords who do not abuse the system and who have an earnest desire to maintain rents at an affordable level."

That is what Mr Grossman stated.

Those are the letters that I refer to, and we have dozens and dozens of similar letters that are still coming in which I will not refer to, but many members may have seen those letters or heard of them. I suspect that all members of the House, and I hope members of the government, will refer to letters that have been written to them by members of their ridings which will be similar.

I would like to refer to a newspaper article on 10 December by Thomas Walkom. He simply told it from the tenants' point of view -- anonymous tenants, to protect them -- about two people who owned a house and had a basement apartment which they proposed to renovate. They paid a lot for this house. I am going to quote a little bit from the article:

"They bought at the top of the market. But at least, they say. they have one. Not everyone does.

"They both work, they don't have kids. So they make a living. 'A good buck,' as Bill would say. Bill belongs to a union: he gets time-and-a-half when he works overtime.

"But the house takes everything -- as houses will. Bill and Marge are, in effect, mortgage slaves. They don't complain. But that's what they are."

Then it goes on to talk about how they intended to and did renovate their basement apartment.

"So on November 28, Cooke introduced stringent new legislation. Landlords will be held to the rent increase guidelines. In addition, they may apply to have certain limited items, such as electricity rate increases, passed through to tenants.

"But, as the plan stands now, landlords will not be able to pass on maintenance and capital costs. This is to last for two years, to allow the government time to develop a better rent control system.

"The new rules are to be retroactive to October 1.

"Cooke explained that landlords should already have been putting aside a portion of their rents to pay for future repairs."

Can you imagine?

"Bill and Marge, however, didn't do that. They set about renovating their basement before the NDP was elected, under the assumption they could pay for it later.

"Now, they don't know what to do.

"The recession has already driven down rents. Bill figures that a basement apartment in his area might now rent for only $450 a month.

"But now, if they rent at $450, that figure becomes the base. They will be able to charge the annual guideline increase. But in 1991, that 5.4 per cent figure won't even cover inflation (which, the Ontario government predicts, will be 6.1%)."

That is an interesting item which the Minister of Housing has not referred to; that is, the percentage increases. They are not even going to keep up with inflation.

Mr Walkom goes on with his article:

"They will certainly not be able to recover the costs of renovating the apartment.

"So they may turn their basement apartment into a recreation room. That way at least, Bill can move the television there and watch sports all day Saturday.

"And the renovation costs? Well, Bill will have to work more overtime.

"In the end, Bill and Marge may be happier. They won't have the hassle of tenants. And Bill -- although he will have to work longer hours -- will be able to watch sports.

"But in Toronto, which claims to suffer from a housing shortage, there will be one less apartment. Is this what Cooke's rent control legislation is intended to accomplish?"

2240

Whether he wants to admit it or not, this minister and his government are hurting the very people they pretend to help. We on this side of the House have brought them example after example and all they can say is that it is unfair to tenants that they must fund renovations or that they are somehow encouraging landlords to stop planned renovations. I notice the Minister of Housing does not even bother to hear us.

However, that later argument demonstrates the length to which this minister is prepared to go to avoid answering fundamental questions. We are not encouraging apartment owners to allow their buildings to deteriorate; this government is by its wrongheaded policies. But this is not the first occasion that the minister has engaged in verbal evasion. When I suggested several days ago that some $500 million in renovations would be postponed or cancelled as the result of this government's policy, the Minister of Housing told the House he did not know where I was getting my figures. Let me tell the members -- because the Minister of Housing has disappeared -- that the figure is based on an extrapolated estimate by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, based on a survey of its members. The minister probably knew this, but he proceeded to tell me that the largest single capital passed through in one year under the current rent review system was $122 million. Since that time I have wanted to ask the minister but two simple questions.

First, does that figure not simply represent what has been processed by the system and not what may be held up in the system awaiting approval? The Fair Rental Policy Organization estimates that its figure of $500 million translates approximately to 16,000 lost jobs. What, I would ask the minister and members of the government, is his estimate of the direct and indirect job loss stemming from his policy? My guess is that the minister has not even thought of this, and he does not care.

Second, and more important, is the question which flows from the minister's admission of at least $122 million of capital expenditures. How much of that $122 million does the minister think was spent on luxury improvements versus essential capital renovations and repairs? I hope the minister and the Ministry of Housing will provide us with that information. Do they have that breakdown? Does it support their continuing inference that the only work going on out there is unnecessary, unwanted luxury upgrades?

I am dwelling on this issue of luxury upgrades at considerable risk. I know that this ever-resourceful minister -- and certainly he is experienced, I will not doubt this -- can counter with example after example of gratuitous upgrades, the old marble lobby stories. We hear them every time we ask a question. Are we, however, dealing with just so much hysterical, rhetorical rubbish when the government trots out its luxury horror stories?

The minister will recall that his predecessor, John Sweeney, introduced regulations last April which, among other things, required landlords to notify tenants in detail of planned renovations. In cases involving replacement of items within specific units, such as appliances, cupboards, tiles and fixtures, the landlord now had to obtain written agreement from the tenant. Furthermore, rent increases resulting from such work were made specific to those units where the work was done. But I think it is important to establish here and now whether this government is merely putting an end to renovations that nobody wants, if indeed that problem has essentially already been taken care of for the most part by the former government, or all renovations. I think it is the latter.

Let me say about the minister's past attempts to suggest that I am somehow encouraging landlords to let their buildings run down, I have done nothing of the sort. I have predicted that it will happen, and that is not to say that I condone it either. It will be a consequence of the minister's actions, and not mine. What this minister and his government fail to understand, or quite possibly understand too well, is that once you leach out all incentive of being a private landlord, then what is the point of investing in your property? What is the point?

Let us turn our attention to what I would term essential renovations. We are now hearing of cases where owners are required by Hydro or the municipality to undertake repairs or upgrades. There is no discretion in the matter; they simply have to do it.

Take the example I raised the other day in the House. Tina Schickedanz owns four buildings, all 20 to 25 years old, and since October 1989 she has completed over $1 million in repairs which she now has no hope of recovering. She played by the rules but he changed the rules in midstream. The minister will no doubt recall my mentioning this case, because in doing so I mentioned cracked plaster and drywall. That of course gave the minister the opening he needed to avoid the discussion of the principle of retroactivity.

Did the minister ever consider that something as simple as cracked plaster could indicate more serious structural problems, leaking pipes or a damaged roof? What is he saying to the apartment owners of Ontario in this? If they own an old building in need of repair, they will have to fund every repair from normal cash rental flow. If they cannot, then tough, too bad, they are out of luck. Where is the fairness and equity in this? Where is the common sense? Are we to expect an end to all low-rise rehabilitation? Are we to expect a situation where the government funds all of it because landlords cannot?

It is clear to me that this government simply has not considered the consequences of its actions. That is, in part, why I raised the interview with the Premier of this province which he gave to Michael Melling, formerly of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations. We are now -- this has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition -- all too familiar with the Premier's words, but I want to repeat them again in case they have been forgotten over there. The Premier said at that time to Mr Melling:

"You make it less profitable for people to own it (meaning private rental stock). I would bring in a very rigid, tough system of rent review. Simple. Eliminate the exemptions and the loopholes. There will be a huge squawk from the speculative community and you would say to them, if you are unhappy we will buy you out."

Let's be very clear about one thing: This is not some kind of isolated quotation taken out of context. It represents a theme throughout the entire article, if one were to read the entire article. It clearly is a theme by the Premier of this province.

I am just becoming aware of the reality that everything one says in public life is taken down. They write everything that you say in here, it is quoted and it is sometimes frequently distorted. I can sympathize with my friends over there on the government side. They have all said things in the comfort of knowing their chances of holding power were slight. I expect that is what the now Premier of this province was doing. He never dreamed in a million years that he would become the Premier. They keep saying, "But we never dreamed we would be here."

Well, they are in office now and we have every right to scrutinize the public record to get hints of how they plan to run this province. Goodness knows, their pronouncements now are so careful one would have to be a psychic to determine any clear direction.

2250

Back then, in what was obviously an unguarded moment, the now Premier was apparently being absolutely candid about where he stood. As members know, I confronted him with his own words and he was a touch miffed. He tried to make out that tenants should be able to take their buildings co-op or non-profit.

I can agree with that, but what I cannot agree to is the suggestion that we artificially create situations which drive down the value of property and make it utterly impossible for the private ownership of apartment stock, and that appears to be the policy of this government.

Hon Mr Laughren: I agree with you.

Mr Tilson: Well, I am sorry to hear that. There must be willing sellers and willing buyers in a market situation which is not intentionally distorted by government policy. There is nothing wrong with private apartment stock turning non-profit or co-op under these circumstances.

There is, however, another question flowing from the Premier's remarks. Put simply, who is the "we" he refers to when he says, "We will buy you out"? Is it the tenants or is it the government? Maybe this is just a question of syntax, but it is nevertheless important. Was the Premier suggesting that the government has the financial wherewithal to buy up all of the privately held rental accommodation in the province? Was that his suggestion, or was he merely suggesting that the tenants themselves do it? I would suggest that since he previously referred to what he would do as a government, that is to bring in very rigid, tough rental review, I fear that the "we" referred to is in fact the government.

I would like to conclude my remarks this evening with an observation. It is obvious to all those who sit in this chamber and those who watch our deliberations that this government is under intense pressure to deliver on its promises. Never before, it would seem, has a party's platform been under so much scrutiny. Rarely has a party's commitments to the people been taken so literally. This is only proper, especially in times of widespread public cynicism about politicians and their promises. It is to be expected that we are to be held to our word and measured by our deeds.

The problem which confronts this government, and it is one which I can muster some sympathy for, is that promises can be expensive. As we have seen today, we have no money; the cupboard is bare. But what this government can do to demonstrate that it is keeping the faith is to implement those parts of its agenda that do not cost the Treasury any money. The Treasurer does not say "right" at that response.

At first blush, the government's recent rent control initiatives appear to fall nicely into that category. With it, the government plays nicely to its audience and it can claim that, unlike other provinces, it does not cost anything. That is, however, where they are wrong. They are dead wrong. It is a totally false economy to think they can create circumstances where the private rental stock of this province will deteriorate and it will not impact the taxpayers. They will lose revenue from decline in construction activity and job loss. They will end up creating a situation where new housing. probably non-profit and co-op, will be needed to replace what might have been perfectly good existing housing stock. There will be the capital costs involved in this and there will be the ongoing and seemingly limitless associated operating expenses.

Think of the bureaucratic nightmare that will flow from the passage of this bill. Does the minister have any idea, as I asked today in question period, what a burden will be placed on the rental standards boards or the municipal property standards officials? Do they have any idea of the downloading, which they criticized the previous government for, this is going to create? There is indeed a cost to this, and what the government proposes to do will only make the bureaucracy more bloated and expensive to maintain.

Allow me to refer the attention of the House to research bulletin 27 titled "Preserve or Perish," on the issue of conservation, put out by the city of Toronto planning and development department some four years ago; it was December 1986.

Among other things, this report deals with the issue of renovating existing apartment stock versus constructing new, non-profit high-rise buildings. They estimated that the typical cost of conserving existing stock was in the range between $4,000 and $16,000 in 1985 dollars, versus the average cost of constructing a non-profit high-rise rental building of $53,000 per unit.

I know this report is dated -- it is four years old -- but does that not show us that the idea of utilizing what we currently have is not new and makes much more sense than simply abandoning it? It would appear obvious that this government favours the high-priced approach to housing rather than a cost-effective one.

Something else will suffer, something much more intangible but none the less important. As I indicated today in my question to the Minister of Housing, what will suffer will be the tenants' quality of life. If their buildings deteriorate, so will their lives. We have seen this experience in every major city in the world. In the end, however, they too will realize that the government had the chance to do something truly creative and learn from its mistakes, but it nevertheless blew it.

It is a myth that this party which I have the honour of representing is anti-tenant. We are not. We would prefer, however, to take a long-range look at the problems facing the rental market and solve them to the best of our abilities for the benefit of all concerned. Our party believes tenants should have a choice and that the supply of housing stock be increased. The NDP government has done nothing to resolve this problem.

Unlike this government, which is prepared to pander for the quick fix of momentary popularity -- I realize the minister may or may not have thought I have been tough on him. I have tried to be.

Mr Ramsay: He is not even here.

Mr Tilson: The member is right, he is not even here. Is that not astounding, for his own bill?

I think the minister deserves it, and I hope all members of the House will be tough on him, but permit me to make two further points.

An hon member: There he is.

Mr Tilson: I welcome the minister back.

First, I am glad the government has adopted, as I understand it, my recommendation to send this bill to committee. I understand that is what it is going to do.

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I just point out that it is inappropriate for any member of this House to point out the absence of another member. That is in the rules. I thought perhaps the member for Dufferin-Peel, being a new member, might not be aware of that.

Mr Tilson: If that is in the rules, I apologize to the minister.

This series of public hearings will not hold up the benefits of tenants, but it will give all concerned a chance to examine the consequences of this legislation in greater detail. I think that is a good thing. This bill, even if it is an interim step, is far too important to be rushed through this House.

Second, I would say this to the minister: In the name of fairness and equity, remove its unjust retroactive features. They do him and his government very little justice.

2300

Ms Poole: It is always a very painful moment for me when I have to agree with a Conservative. Fortunately, it does not happen very often, because I very seldom agree with anything they do or say. But in this case, the member for Dufferin-Peel has raised a number of very valid points. I would say that at one point he reminded me very much of the Minister of Financial Institutions in his particular profile in this House, except instead of reading telephone message after telephone message, he was reading fax after fax. I can sympathize with him, because my office has also been flooded with those same faxes.

His point about the housing stock not aging well is particularly important, the fact that 80% was built prior to 1975. The minister is quite right to be concerned about cases of deliberate ongoing neglect, but I can tell the members of this House that they can have an excellent landlord who keeps up the day-to-day maintenance in a very admirable way and still have our buildings deteriorate. It is very natural when you have 100 degree Fahrenheit temperature differences in this province that the cement contracts, expands, contracts, expands; the underground parking does corrode from salt damage. These things happen regardless of the amount of maintenance a landlord puts in, and it has to be remedied in this bill.

The member also mentioned Mr Sweeney's regulations. There are a couple of regulations Mr Sweeney brought in that I am not sure the member is aware of. One is that he had a very good solution for the flipping-after-renovations syndrome. We, as a government, did bring in a regulation which said that if the landlord sold his building within five years of getting a rent review decision on renovations, the landlord could not have the double-dipping, that the landlord would be penalized that amount and it would go back to the tenants. That was a very strong regulation.

The second thing is that the minister allowed a multi-year plan. Prior to that the way the system worked is that if a landlord did not put all his renovations in one year, he faced paying a 1% penalty of the gross rents every year. This really encouraged the landlord to do it all at once. What Mr Sweeney said was to allow a multi-year plan without a penalty every year, so that rent increases would be spread out and you would not have some of these outrageous rent increases. I think there is no doubt that we can go even further than that.

What I was most disappointed about in the speech from the member for Dufferin-Peel is that he did not offer any solutions. He did not offer any concrete suggestions to help the government in dealing with the problems that we face with our rental stock. I hope those solutions will be forthcoming in the very near future.

Mr Mammoliti: I am concerned that the member for Dufferin-Peel really does not understand what the tenants have been going through. When he makes statements like "You missed the point" to the minister and when he makes statements like boilers breaking down and money being spent by landlords -- I am not sure how he put it, but going to my point, why do boilers break down? Why do walls and driveways need refacing? Why do refrigerators and stoves have to be replaced? I will tell members the reason. The reason I have been seeing in my riding is neglect by the landlords.

Where was the member for Dufferin-Peel -- where were the Liberals, for that matter -- when all the tenants were crying about rent review and the problems they were having in rent review? Where were they for the tenants in my riding when they were pleading for the past two years about what is happening to them? They have not been anywhere, because they do not care. I applaud the minister and thank him on behalf of the tenants in Yorkview.

Mr McGuinty: I listened with interest to the speech from the member for Dufferin-Peel and his expressed displeasure with this bill and the antecedent legislation.

I think it is important for him and his party to bear in mind that rent controls were introduced in this province in 1975 by the Conservative Party. That was an unusual intrusion into the forces of the free market, but it was warranted and we are pleased with it. The legislation proved to be ultimately badly flawed. In 1985, to be fair, as a result of the accord between the Liberal government and the NDP, several key amendments were introduced including post-1975 buildings being covered for the first time; annual increases were limited to once a year; key money was banned, key money in all of its various forms; and the legislation was extended to include roomers, boarders and lodgers.

I think of significance was the process used at the time to develop the new amendments. Nine landlords and nine tenants essentially were locked into a room for four months and they produced legislation which was compromise legislation. The member referred to the fact that this legislation was the subject of complaint on behalf of both landlords and tenants. It may very well be, but that is the sign of a good compromise.

The problem here, of course, is that we do not have the same process. There is no effort on the part of this minister to attempt to obtain input from the landlords and tenants. We have in effect an edict being issued, and for that reason we are suffering adverse consequences which will only come back to haunt this government.

Mr Jackson: I was very pleased to hear from our Housing critic the points he raised. I happen to agree with most of them. I think he overstated a couple of points, but I think it is important that the House realize that on the maintenance standards bylaw point --

Mr Christopherson: Come on over.

Mr Jackson: Actually, it is an invitation I will decline, but the members should know that when this rent review legislation was voted on five years ago I stood in my place and voted against it -- I am ashamed to admit it -- but so did the NDP at the time. However, I disagreed with the legislation for fundamentally different reasons, but we agreed on several points.

At the time, we realized that the section of the bill that dealt with maintenance standards was not going to be proclaimed. In five years, maintenance standards legislation was not proclaimed under the Liberal government and, as my colleague has indicated, I do not see how the NDP government is going to be able to implement maintenance standards bylaws across this province and ensure that tenants are protected. If he is going to have a two-year moratorium, I further submit that people will not have that protection for two years. If they should, under some circumstance, get the protection, it will be entirely financed by municipal politicians and by municipal taxes.

I think the House would be wise to listen to the warnings as presented by the member for Dufferin-Peel, because if the government of the day is saying that people will be protected because there will be maintenance standards procedures in place, in fact there will not be. Tenants will not be served and neither will landlords, and whole communities are going to have to engage in a major expense. So I encourage all members to listen very carefully to the points raised by the member for Dufferin-Peel. On this point, I agree with him.

2310

Mr Tilson: I thank the member for Burlington South for his kind remarks.

The member for Eglinton says, "What would this party do?" I would say that we would be taking action to provide incentives to increase housing and repair and maintain it. We would not have the punitive retroactivity provision. It certainly does encourage slums. It is probably illegal.

We would not have a policy that increases property bylaw inspections, more unenforceable work orders and more bureaucracy. We would provide legislation that would be fair and would encourage essential apartment renovations. I think that is exactly what we would do. We would provide fair legislation. The Liberal government had the opportunity to introduce that legislation and botched it.

Yes, the Progressive Conservative government did try to help the tenants of this province in the 1970s, and it only did it as a temporary measure. But the Liberals made a mess of it. They perpetuated the problem. They added bureaucracy to it. They added more and more expense. They created more and more difficulties. This bill clearly will create an absolute disaster to all aspects of our economy in this province.

Ms Churley: Day after day, and now night after night, we have sat in this House. We have gone down memory lane -- I have to thank one of my colleagues for that phrase -- with the members across the way. We have heard their life stories and how disappointed they are that we are so-called backsliding on our commitment to the people's agenda. In fact, they have been begging us, imploring us to implement our people's agenda, night after night lately.

Here we are. We are doing it. What do we get but cries of "Foul" and, "Here we go again," and. "Stop, don't do it." But what I have to ask tonight is, who is speaking for the tenants here? I have not heard one person across that room, tonight or the day before, speak up for the tenants. The member from the Liberals attempted to speak, but was speaking out of both sides of her mouth, trying to speak up for the tenants and for the landlords.

I am going to speak for the tenants tonight. I could have brought hundreds of letters and thousands of names on petitions tonight from when I was a city councillor in the city of Toronto. I did not bring those letters. It could have made my speech a lot easier, I guess. I could have stood up and read a lot of letters from those people. They would have broken your heart.

There are tenants out there who are really suffering. I do not think that the member for Dufferin-Peel understands the rent review system such as it is. He does not seem to understand that flips -- as he referred to so-called flips -- are really flips. I have seen them. I do not think he has seen the results of what happens to the people who live in these buildings and have to suffer the results of those flips.

He talks about the Minister of Housing not playing by the rules. Well, I have to say that some unscrupulous landlords are not playing by the rules. Herein lies the problem. Actually, I could say that landlords are playing by the rules, so they say. That is the problem. We have a rent control system that allows these kind of scams that are going on. That is what they are. This was in the Globe and Mail today. I know the minister quoted from it earlier. It is disgraceful. The implications of it are that we have to do something to protect those tenants.

When a landlord says, "From a legal point of view, there's nothing wrong with this [investment deal] because it's all allowed under the law," you have a problem. Then a landlord says: "I agree the current tenants would be forced out. I thought it was the government's job to look after them." Well, it is the government's job to look after them, and that is exactly what we are trying to do here.

As I said, I had been a city councillor for a very short time, and in what is now my riding all of the high-rise buildings in that riding, every single one of them, had gone through flips and were in the process of going through other flips. As a city councillor for that area, I went out and offered my resources to help those tenants organize. I also do not think people have addressed and understood the implication of the time line and the long wait when a landlord decides to go for rent review. Sometimes it is illegal. They apply illegally, but it can take up to one or two years for the results of that to come out.

What happens is the tenant has to do one of two things. The tenant, no matter what his or her income, has to either put aside the 20%, 50%, 70%, 100% or 125%. He or she has to put that money in the bank in case the rent review board rules in favour of the landlord because then that is money is owed. If the tenant does not have that money, then that tenant lives in fear. That is the reality of the system we are now trying to adjust. It is a very serious problem. I have seen it at first hand and I have worked with tenants at first hand.

Let's face it, most of the people who live in apartment buildings cannot have a part of the dream. They are not home owners. They are some of the most vulnerable people of our society and it is our responsibility as a government to find a system that works for them so that they know they are being treated fairly, and that is what this system is trying to do. This is a moratorium which will give us an opportunity.

The member for Eglinton said she would be willing to look at doing this kind of moratorium for a year. I think that is the kind of suggestion we need to hear. In fact, if the members opposite were willing to co-operate and understand that there are real people living in apartments who are suffering and have been for years under a system that does not work, and understand that we are anxious to get on with it and create a system that does work, and co-operate fully with us to make sure that a system is in place as soon as possible, possibly before two years are up, we would not have the kinds of problems that are being dragged out today.

Mr Sterling: Dragged out?

Ms Churley: Yes, dragged out. There was a very long speech given earlier and dragged out.

I would like add something about the implications of refrigerators and of double-glazed windows. The reality is that they pay for themselves in five years or so. Everybody should be doing it and the money comes back. It is an energy conservation idea that pays for itself and people should be doing it.

To finish, some of the landlords' lobbies are really striking terror in the hearts of tenants. A lot of the tenants in this province have been suffering from anxiety about unfair rent increases for a long time. I find that the members opposite are feeding that terror. I think that is unfair. I also think that the lobby group does not represent the majority of law-abiding landlords. But the type of lobbying that these people are carrying out -- these members are contributing to this fear -- I think is unscrupulous and unfair.

I believe that if we are to solve this problem, this mishmash of Tory and Liberal policy that is not working, then we should all work together on this and make sure we operate from the philosophy that people have a right to a decent place to live. It is not a privilege for people with money; it is a right for everybody. We are not getting that in this province. That is what this legislation is all about.

2320

Mr Jackson: I was quite fascinated by the member for Riverdale's suggestion that we should work together. I happen to believe that one of the problems with this debate is that we have a very polarized view from the NDP that it somehow has to be the solitary voice for tenants in this province, and we have heard the accusation that there is a solitary voice for landlords, from the Conservatives, and that somewhere in this equation we have the Liberals.

On this point, I think it is important that we consider a couple of points. Tenants are suffering in this province. Very clearly tenants are suffering in this province. I think it is fundamentally wrong to assume that simply saying that your rent will only go up by 6% is helping a person who is living below the poverty level and paying 40% or 50% and in some cases 60% of his income in rent. The only reason I am angry about the comments of the member is to say that we should work together, because my position on this differs from everybody in this House. My own caucus does not support my view on this.

We can no longer continue to subsidize the rich who live in apartments in this province. That is what we were warned by Stuart Thom, who spent $4.5 million of taxpayers' money looking at alternatives. George Thomson in the Social Assistance Review Committee report said rent control does not help the poor; it helps shelter the rich.

The truth of the matter is that if we wanted to be honest today in this debate, we would, as the member suggests, work together and we would implement the SARC recommendations which acknowledge, as every poverty group in this province acknowledges, that the number one impediment on poverty is the cost of shelter.

Their bill will put a cap and a freeze, but people are suffering under the current costs of rent, and that is where the bill breaks down because it does not address the needs of the poor in this province.

Mr Drainville: When we heard the very long remarks that were given to us initially by the member for the Conservative Party, there was some relative respectful silence at the time as we listened to those remarks, and it was quite a long dissertation by the honourable member. Yet in the brief dissertation given by the member on this side of the House, there were catcalls and all sorts of things. I remember the words of Thomas Mann, who said, "We are most likely to get angry and excited in our opposition to some idea when we ourselves are not quite certain of our own position, and are inwardly tempted to take the other side."

What I say today is that all the catcalls and all the comments that have been made when the member was trying to make her point were not really acceptable at that time. They did not give her an opportunity to speak. Basically what the member was saying was that we have taken a position for many years in terms of the tenants of this province. The position is clear. It is antithetical to what they believe. What they stand for is clear. I might say, as somebody who was a tenant for many years, I experienced the difficulty of living in accommodation that was not kept up by landlords, when I did not have an awful lot of money to spend.

I would rather say that our intention is clear in this legislation and in An Agenda for People, which has been much vaunted by the opposition, and that policy is that the tenants of Ontario need to be protected. If it takes our government to do that, then we will do it. That is our aim and we will do it.

Ms Poole: I would like to comment on some of the statements made by the member for Riverdale. First of all, she said we were imploring them to implement their agenda. I would like to point out that is not what we were doing at all. What we were doing was criticizing the fact that they made promises they could not possibly keep. There is a very big difference in those two statements.

She also said that nobody on this side of the House had said anything today or yesterday about tenant protection. If she believes that, then I think she either did not hear my speech or did not listen to my speech, because prime in my mind is tenant protection. We are talking about people's homes. She pointed out that tenants are vulnerable in that very few of them will actually have the opportunity to buy a home. So I think not only the affordability of our housing stock, but the viability of our housing stock is of paramount importance.

She mentioned the long waiting period because of rent review, and she is quite right. For many years there was, but by this spring the backlog was basically cleared up and most rent review decisions were coming through in two to three months. My riding is 60% tenants and I have worked with them on a day-to-day basis, so I know what I am talking about.

The fact of the matter is -- I have statistics from the Ministry of Housing here to prove it -- that in only 5.7% of the cases that went to rent review was there a rent increase over 20%. So let's deal with those unacceptable cases. Let's deal with those outrageous rent increases. Why throw the baby out with the bath water? Why bring in legislation that is going to affect every tenant, every landlord, every building in this province when we could deal with it on a reasonable basis. I will commit to them, I will offer them my full co-operation in trying to get a reasonable solution to this problem.

Mr Sterling: Yesterday afternoon a woman came to visit me in my office. She is a landlord in the city of Ottawa. She and her husband some 30 years ago bought 68 units on Bay Street in the city of Ottawa. They have not only owned those units. but she and her husband lived in those units for the past 30 years. It was their home as well as their investment. This woman's husband died four or five years ago.

There has been no sale of this building for the past 30 years. At the present time with the financing and the rents she is able to garner from her tenants, partially because of the market in Ottawa as well as rent controls, will not give her enough money whereby she can hire all of the work for the maintenance of her building to be done by other professional people. So this woman, who is 64 or 65 years of age, actually does some of the work herself in the building. She was thinking that at this time she would like to retire after being the landlady and her husband being the landlord of this building for some 30 years. She wanted to retire.

As a result of this minister's implementation of this legislation, her property has now decreased in value, as appraised by real estate people, by some 25% to 35%. We are against this government expropriating people's property without proper compensation. That is what this bill is all about.

2330

Ms Churley: There are a lot of points to answer. As to the point about the housing stock, it has been deteriorating for years and the roofs are not suddenly starting to fall in as of last 1 October. The roofs have been falling in for some time. I go back to the point that we are trying to get on with this legislation so we can find permanent legislation that works.

I also believe that the scrupulous landlords out there have been keeping their buildings up and will continue to do that. That is what I do not like about the kind of lobby that is going on. It is causing unnecessary fear to tenants. I have seen the gold-plated --

Mr Callahan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believed there was one more round, or at least one more speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: No. We started with the member for Burlington South, we went to the member for Victoria-Haliburton and after that it was the member for Eglinton and the member for Carleton, which makes four for eight minutes. There are two minutes for the member for Riverdale, for a total of 10 minutes.

Mr Callahan: I thought the rotation started out of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The point of order used up a great deal of my colleague's time, and I wonder if you could put the time back on the clock.

The Deputy Speaker: We will start all over again. The member for Riverdale has the floor for two minutes.

Ms Churley: I have seen the gold-plated renovations in buildings where elevators were broken down and the garages were unsafe, for women in particular, and were leaking. I have seen it in buildings in my riding, and I have worked with the tenants to try to correct it and it did not happen. I have seen those buildings flip and I have seen people have to move out, and that is the ongoing situation. I would just like to make a point about the fact that I do not think that there is anybody in any housing situation --

Mr Callahan: The clock isn't running, Mr Speaker.

Ms Churley: The clock stopped; I can go on endlessly. God must be on my side.

If you look at statistics, and we are really talking a lot about statistics here tonight --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your chair. It was an error from the table. We will give you another two minutes again.

Ms Churley: Do members have any good points they want me to make? Okay, this is a very serious issue for me. I do take it very seriously, because I have been a tenant. I am one of the people -- and still am -- who has never before been able to buy a house. I have not been one of the lucky ones. It is a very serious issue for me.

Mr Bradley: With your new pay, you will be able to.

Ms Churley: My new pay may change that soon.

Statistics show that there is not a home owner, there is not a developer who develops big buildings, condos etc, who is not somehow subsidized by some government. We are talking about capital gains tax, we are talking about tax breaks given to rich developers to build buildings that are then flipped and rich people live in.

Mr Sterling: Like Jack Layton.

Ms Churley: Yes, and co-ops. Everybody gets some kind of tax break, and I think we need to consider that. I think it is probably a question that we need to open wholly. Who should be getting subsidies from the government, and should home owners be getting capital gains tax? I think it is a very important point. I think we have a principle of subsidizing the disadvantaged in our society, and that is what this is all about. Again, I just say we are trying to find a fair way for everybody to do that.

Mr McClelland: With regard to the time, I know the member for Grey wants to make some comments and cannot be here tomorrow, so I will try to ensure that he is left with ample time. I just might mention, if I may, Mr Speaker, for those who will respond, that the member would like to do that, so we will bear that in mind.

I noted with some interest the comments from the member for Riverdale, who is leaving at present, but I am sure she will be able to refer to the record. She said that one of the difficulties she felt was that our critic, the member for Eglinton, had spoken on one hand in favour of tenants but had the audacity, if I can use that word by implication, to also make reference to landlords. In light of that, I want to comment on a comment made by the minister last evening.

I had the opportunity to hear the minister. He said in his opening comments he believed very strongly that there has to be a housing strategy in this province. I do not think there is anybody in this House, indeed in this province, who would not agree with that. I would say for the record in response to the member for the Riverdale that this is precisely why our critic speaks in terms of both tenants and landlords, because indeed they are part of the solution as well. The spirit of co-operation that the minister has invited to be brought to bear on solving a very serious issue for many people I think of necessity requires that both groups, if you will, be considered and that whatever wisdom can be gleaned from whatever source be taken into account. In fairness, I think the minister recognizes that and has indicated that.

The minister also said: "I think that one of the aspects of our proposal that has been deliberately neglected for political reasons" -- that is appropriate for this forum -- "is the fact that we are bringing forward a short-term proposal."

Let me say to the minister this evening, and to members of this House, that I will be voting in favour of this bill because I think that we do need to move ahead. I recognize that it is short-term. I am going to vote in favour of it with a very significant caveat, and that is in order to allow us to proceed as quickly as possible towards the minister's permanent legislation.

I believe, as does the member for Eglinton, who quite frankly has taken some criticism from the member for Riverdale, that landlords are a necessary ingredient in the long-term solution. The minister said with respect to that, in responding to our critic's comments last night, that she could cut up certain parts of the speech and send certain parts of it to tenants and certain parts of it to landlords. I understand the spirit in which that was said, that is the nature of the business. As the minister said earlier in his comments, it is the nature of this business that no matter what you do you are going to take criticism for it.

In a very serious vein, I believe the minister acknowledges that that is a necessary part of the solution. That is very important. I want to state very clearly for the record that the reason I will be standing in support of this bill for second reading is with a view to see what might happen in terms of the process that may bring amendments to it, and to do nothing that I feel would stop this from moving forward.

Second, I am also interested in moving towards the permanent legislation the minister speaks of. It is with that in mind that I am prepared to support this bill, but with that in mind only. I want to make that very clear because I feel very passionately about this issue, as do most members.

We talk of housing strategy. I am very well aware of the fact that non-profit accommodation does not fall under the strictures of rent review. There was some comment made about that last night; the minister made some apparent criticism of the critic's comments with respect to non-profit housing.

I bring that up because at present in Peel region, the area I represent, there are 7,000 people on the waiting list for non-profit housing. That amounts to a three-year waiting list. I use that as a point of departure in putting on the record what I believe -- in part I share with the member for Burlington South -- is one of the issues that needs to be addressed in the long-term strategy the minister will be considering.

It seems to me that the strategy and the philosophy undertaken by non-profit housing in Peel, which is considered by many to be a model, has a direct bearing here. What they have done is this. They have said that in provision of non-profit housing, they want to take their units and contribute, as the minister well knows, a percentage of those units for deep subsidy, a percentage for shallow subsidy and a smaller percentage, the remaining 20%, for market. Therein, I believe, lies a very important philosophy, a thread that runs through the operation of Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp, that I would urge the minister to consider as we look at rent review in its general terms.

I, like the member for Burlington South, believe that one of the fundamental problems with our rent review legislation as it presently exists is its failure to distinguish between various levels of economic need in the province, and also the fundamental failure to not recognize the distinction between social assistance housing and marketplace housing. I believe that in a perfect world -- we do not live in a perfect world -- we could arrive at a solution whereby people have the opportunity to be in rental protection where needed and as required or some sort of subsidy in terms of their housing requirements, that they would then be given the opportunity to move into what I believe would be ideal: into the marketplace economy in terms of housing.

Can that be achieved? I believe it can. I believe there is enough wisdom that is not the purview of any one party or any one individual or group of individuals. I believe that if there is a will we can move towards providing accommodation for people at all levels of the economic social strata.

2340

I think part of that is borne out by the following: Three in four tenants who earn over $45,000 per year -- in the $45,000 to $60,000 range of income -- pay less than 20% of their income on rent. I think that begs the question: Is it therefore necessary in all cases to have the structure of rent controls that the minister is imposing in this situation? Two out of three tenants who earn $15,000 to $20,000 pay more than 30% of their income on rent. Therein lies a significant problem and I think the driving force and motivation behind rent controls. But I remind the minister, and it has been said by many people in the third party and by our critic, that the vast majority of landlords, the representatives of 80% to 85% of all apartment units in Ontario, did not file applications, and their increases were limited to under 5% on average.

I think that bears repeating. It has been said over and over again, but the underlying message is this: Is it necessary, to use an overworked cliché, to overkill by putting the moratorium on at present with the strictures that it has? We have heard of the economic impact it has had on many people. Indeed the minister, as perhaps one of the perks that go with the office, was subjected to a situation with hundreds of people in front of the House demonstrating, and unfortunately was not given an opportunity to really put his point of view forward. I regret that. I know many of my colleagues on this side have experienced that same situation. I think that is what we need to do: have an open and honest dialogue. The minister has invited that, and for that I applaud him.

I am also concerned about something I have heard throughout some of the discussion from members on the government side, and that is a very clear tenant bias. I do not mean tenant advocacy. I think that is entirely appropriate; I endorse that fully. My colleague the member for Eglinton has distinguished herself consistently over many years in terms of her role as a tenant advocate for the 68%-plus members of her constituency who are tenants. I have no difficulty with that.

As the minister moves towards a comprehensive review of rent legislation, I think part of the underlying philosophy and principle of tenant protection in this province is in fact tenant advocacy. Our party has no difficulty with that. I do not presume to speak on behalf of the third party, but I suspect it too has no problem with that underlying philosophy.

It seems to me that part and parcel of the equation, and I come back to my starting point, is that there cannot be an honest dialogue, there cannot be an honest attempt to fundamentally look at the need of a long-term comprehensive housing strategy, with a particular bias.

If I can deviate just for a moment -- bear with me, because this will apply directly to Bill 4, the bill before us -- I had a group of students visit today from a school in the Toronto area. They met with their member, who is a member of the third party, and they wanted to talk to a member who had been both a backbencher in government and now in opposition to get a different perspective on the roles we fulfil as members of this assembly. One of the questions put to me was, "Why are you a member of the party you are a member of?" I told them I had an opportunity to speak on this bill today. I said it is precisely because of that, the philosophy I think we can bring to bear on this type of situation, that I am a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario.

I have no difficulty with advocacy. I think we have to be very careful in terms of blatant biases. I say that with all respect to the minister, whom I regard highly and have had the opportunity of knowing for many years prior to coming to this House. But it seems to me, and I do not know how to say it more plainly, that the way to arrive at a solution is to go into it, as much as is humanly possible -- because each one of us has our own particular bias; I recognize that. I tend to be -- as the former interim leader of the third party, Mr Brandt, the distinguished former member for Sarnia said -- a blue Liberal. So I come with a particular bias and a particular philosophical approach to things. It may be in considerable antipathy to some of my colleagues opposite, but I recognize that and I think they recognize too their philosophical direction and fundamental philosophy.

But inasmuch as it is possible, I would urge the minister to put aside those biases, put aside the rhetoric I have heard, that I believe serves no good purpose, that can only inflame, that can only have people dig in their heels, that can only have landlords, as a group in this province, say that there is no real consultation, that the rules are being changed halfway through the game. In that spirit, I ask honestly, what kind of co-operative spirit can we really expect?

The reason I am part of this party and I stand here saying, without any fear of retribution no matter what may be said, either in jest or in all sincerity -- I have no difficulty with the minister saying to my friend the member for Eglinton or to myself, "You can cut up your speech and you can send part of it to the tenants and tell them you support them and part of it to the landlords and tell them that you support them." I do not have any difficulty with that and I say that unashamedly. But I hope that at the end of the day the legislation we have in fact embodies that very principle, that it is something that is fundamentally fair to landlords and to tenants.

I think it need not be a situation of adversaries. I think it need not be a situation where it is presumed that there cannot be a meeting of the minds, that we cannot reach a compromise -- which is not, I say to my friends opposite, a dirty word -- in which tenant advocacy is embodied and the protection that is due is afforded tenants, with a realistic approach for landlords who have invested, as I heard today from my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel, who talked about real people and families who have put their life savings into having buildings and acquiring income properties.

I spoke this morning to a small businessman in Brampton. He has a small engineering firm. We were not even talking about rent review legislation, about Bill 4, and he just said parenthetically:

"I want to tell you that it's hurting me badly. Half of my people are going. I'm not a big company. I only have eight people, but four of them are going. The kind of work we do is structural work. We don't do renovations, we don't do high-ticket items. We do basic structural things like balconies, things like parking garages."

I am not going to run over that; members have heard much about that. But they are real people.

I have heard in other discourses in this House, particularly with respect to Bill 1 -- I have made an appointment with the member for Etobicoke-Humber to discuss with him the fact that I was actually watching this last night, about 24 hours ago. It gave me great concern. I heard people talking at great length last night and other nights about "real people" as they were debating Bill 1. Landlords are real people too. Landlords are not all big, impersonal corporate structures and millionaires. They are not all people who are living the high life at the expense of tenants. They are people like you and me.

Mr Bradley: Some are even cabinet ministers.

Mr McClelland: The member for St Catharines reminds us that some landlords were cabinet ministers in the former government. There is nothing wrong with that. I would urge the minister to have. as much as possible, recognizing the bias -- and it is clearly stated; he ought to be commended for the fact that he has been forthright and honest about that, but there is a given bias there. I would hope that he would be very careful as he approaches the legislation.

I am not going to go on. I hope we will have time for the member for Grey. I wanted to speak and I asked my colleagues in caucus if I could have an opportunity. I very, very strongly wanted to speak on this issue, to get on the record and indicate again to this House and to the people in my riding that I will be voting in favour of this bill, but only because I believe it is necessary to move forward for that permanent legislation. l do not for one moment accept the draconian approach -- and I use that word advisedly. I believe it is heavy handed: I believe it is overly restrictive in terms of some very legitimate cases.

2350

A fundamental thing that bothers me more than anything else is that people who have made commitments in good faith, people whose lives will be affected, people who have invested their life savings, some of them, in good faith --

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: The member for London North says it is two years; it may not be two years. In all fairness, the minister says it may not be, but it very well may be two years. People who moved in good faith, landlords, men and women, families in some cases, have worked two and three jobs to get together a bit of capital because they saw it as an opportunity to have retirement income. Those are real people, some who are not necessarily wealthy, and it is for those people that I feel a real sense of anguish in voting in favour of this.

The minister smiles. He has been there before, and he has had that dilemma as he has sat in this House many years prior to me. I ask him, in spite of the lateness of the hour and all of the words that he has had to endure and listen to -- and I know he is doing that in the exercise of his responsibility, dutifully and faithfully here tonight -- not to smirk at that comment. It is going to be very, very tough for me to vote for this, because there are real people who are hurting badly because of this bill. But I will vote for it because I hope it will move us forward towards doing a comprehensive review, and I ask, as did the member for Burlington South, that we be honest and look at a fundamental review for a long-term housing strategy -- if I can use the minister's own words -- that would encompass the needs of everybody involved, all parties of all interests.

For that reason, Mr Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity of having made some brief comments this evening.

Mr Bisson: There are a few points I would like to raise in regard to what the member opposite was talking about. I think we have to keep in mind a couple of very important points. What this legislation is doing in regard to the moratorium is not making the decision as to how rent control legislation is going to happen in this province; it is basically only freezing rents to give an opportunity for the government and people on all sides of the House to be able to consult, to be able to put together the legislation that is needed in this province. Let's keep that in mind, the reasoning, and I think the members opposite and the members on this side of the House understand, that if it had not been done, we would be in the situation in this province six, seven, eight or nine months from now when the legislation is put together, in which people would have had rent increases under the old legislation that would have been in excess of what would be deemed as being reasonable by the people of this province. So we need to keep that in mind.

Mr Callahan: Let me say very quickly, because I understand my colleague wants to allow a member of the third party to speak, I think very often in this House we cast a net -- and we are all guilty of that, the government, probably our party and probably the Conservatives were too -- that is far too wide. We see bogeymen out there and we figure that they are all bogeymen, so we cast the net and we try to catch everybody. Unfortunately, I think that is what the minister is doing. He is casting the net far too wide.

In two years' time, I would like to be back here. I am sure we all will be back here, because we will not have an election. We will be back here and we will be saying to ourselves: "What happened to those apartments? What happened to those homes that real people lived in?" They became destroyed because the minister cast the net so widely to catch the people who were gathering the funds, and he caught the little guys, the little fish, who honestly kept up their apartment buildings. I think he is going to be sorry that he has done this. That is all I can say.

Mr McClelland: In a very brief response, I want to say to my friend the member for Cochrane South I know the hour is late, but I think that if he had heard me, I started out by saying very fundamentally that with respect to the minister's comments last night I wanted to very clearly recognize that this is a moratorium of limited duration. It may last two years; it may not. I said that at the outset. In light of that, my comments hold.

Again, that is indicative of the concern I have. Let's not go into this with preconceived ideas. The member for Cochrane South jumps to his feet and automatically assumes -- he has a mindset that prohibits him from hearing what was said at the outset and the foundation of my comments. He has already got that tunnel vision, and that is what is problematic about this bill.

The member for Cochrane South talks about what terrible things would have happened in the absence of this legislation. People have been talking about the things that are happening because of this legislation, and two wrongs do not make it right, I say to the member for Cochrane South. That is the fundamental problem with Bill 4. It is going after a potential problem of 15% of the target group, the landlords, but it is affecting every one of them.

As my friend the member for Brampton South has so well said, it casts the net broadly across the whole scope of landlords and captures them all, many inappropriately, many unfairly, many caught in situations where -- and I will not get into the technical details of it; the member for Cochrane South is certainly intelligent enough to understand the complexities of financing -- people will be caught with buildings where their mortgages are greater than the value of the buildings. We can think of all the problems that is going to generate and that will be as a direct result of Bill 4. I say again, to the extent that it is possible for any one of us -- we all have our biases -- let's try to put them aside and be reasonable and deal with this and move forward to some good, comprehensive, helpful legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Grey.

Mr McClelland: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I do not know if it is pertinent; I am in your hands. I was wondering if we might extend for a few moments -- I went longer than I had planned -- to give the member for Cochrane South five more minutes.

Mr B. Murdoch: We will probably still be here on Monday, so I do not mind adjourning.

On motion by Mr B. Murdoch, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 2357.