Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

DISABILITY INSURANCE

Mr Beer moved resolution 7:

That in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should introduce legislation during its current mandate to implement a universal disability insurance program; and further, that this legislation should be preceded by a province-wide consultation process initiated before the end of June 1991 and based on a published public consultation document laying out policy options for the management and reform of the current compensation and benefit system.

Mr Beer: I am very pleased this morning to be able to present this motion that will I believe see within this decade a comprehensive, universal disability program or scheme for all of the people of the province, if we can begin and move quickly to start the process of implementation.

I was interested as I was doing some work on this particular resolution to see the number of studies and reviews that have been carried out of this particular issue. Most recently, members will recall that in the report entitled Transitions, Judge Thomson and the Social Assistance Review Committee indicated that this was one of the areas where it was very important for the province of Ontario to move. After the election in 1987, I came across a piece by the now Premier, and then Leader of the Opposition, and I would like to quote it because it speaks very directly to this idea of creating a comprehensive disability insurance system.

He said in his remarks in November 1987: "yet it is an idea whose time has obviously come," the creation of this kind of program. "It is clearly an idea that will allow for the compensation and rehabilitation of people who right now are not being compensated adequately and are not being given the kind of rehabilitation, the kind of help they need. I think it is fair to say," he went on, "it is an idea that makes the same kind of sense as workers' compensation itself did" when it was brought in in 1915.

I could not agree more with the Premier in the remarks that he made in 1987 and I would like, in my comments this morning, to set out why I believe we need this kind of a program, second, to talk about several examples that have come to my attention in my own constituency, and third, to talk about the process that I am suggesting we might enter into if all members can see fit to support this resolution.

I think that when we look at the problem, it is interesting to note all of the different programs that currently exist through the federal and provincial governments. It is kind of an alphabet soup, if you want, a sort of patchwork quilt, whatever kind of metaphor you would like to choose. The Canada pension plan is involved; you can receive disability help there. There are the provincial guaranteed annual income system disability allowance and the general welfare system. Private long-term-care plans exist. There are the Workers' Compensation Board, the Ontario motorist protection plan, unemployment insurance for illness, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and veterans' allowances.

All of these kinds of programs exist. They were created for real and good reasons and they do, in their own way, anywhere from perhaps an adequate to a good job of trying to provide help to our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own -- illness and some form of disability -- require help.

The difficulty that everyone who has looked at this issue sees is that it is not connected, it does not all fit together. Increasingly, in report after report, governments have been asked at both the federal and the provincial levels to find some way to try to bring this together and to have a comprehensive plan which is going to ensure that people, wherever they are injured or whatever the source of the illness, are not going to be left poor and on, I suppose, the kind of heap of society where they can get very little help, and if they have families are unable to support them in an adequate way.

What are the specific problems then that this system, if you like, this patchwork quilt leaves us with? For one thing, it is the incompleteness of the coverage. We have to look at where the person received the disability. Was it at work? Was it off work? Was it in an automobile? When we do that, we see that there is a great deal of variety in what the possibility might be in terms of help that you may receive or, in fact, that you may not receive at all, and that your only resource may be going on the welfare system.

What about the benefit levels? Again, those vary dramatically. In a debate that was held in this House some two and a half years ago, when our colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside, now Minister of Housing, introduced a similar motion, it was noted that in several case examples where people had exactly the same kind of disability, the benefits they received were very different and clearly there was not a situation of equity and fairness. We need to look at benefit levels and ensure it is not just the cause of the disability or where it happened, but in fact what is the end result and what does that person require in order to be able to lead a full life. So the uneven, inadequate benefits; the benefit levels in terms of what program they are under; the lack of cost-effectiveness.

One of the other problems is that we have a variety of bureaucracies that are set up to administer these programs. There can be a great deal of overlap and when we look at the millions and, indeed, billions of dollars that we are spending in this country in some way or other to protect people, I think we have to look at how can we do that in a more effective way so that the money is going to the people who need it.

Finally, the kinds of services for disabled vary dramatically by program. People need help and that help should not depend on the kind of program that they are eligible for.

When I was looking at that particular issue, I was struck by an example of someone who had been to my constituency office in the fall. Her husband was in a wheelchair, and he had been able to get help for the purchase of the wheelchair and for a variety of other devices only so long as he was physically able to propel himself to make the wheelchair move. But as time went on and his disability became worse and he was no longer able to move the wheelchair on his own, through his own power, he then was no longer eligible to receive assistance under that program. Now, clearly, that does not make sense, and if members have not already had cases like this, I can assure them that over the next few years they will, and you sit there very frustrated in terms of knowing how to help.

1010

Another example, again in York region: A family, Mr and Mrs Jones, with two children, where both were hurt, and the catch-22 situation was that when Mr Jones's work -- he was a labourer and he was not getting as much work because of the recession, but he was still making enough money that Mrs Jones was unable to get any assistance. This was having a dramatic impact on their own lives and their children's, and their children were now showing up requiring counselling and assistance within the school system.

When we looked at both of those cases, the people were straightforward, they were honest, they were not trying to rip off the system, but the system simply did not work for them. They fell between the cracks. I think the intent of this is to ensure that those kinds of problems will not continue to exist, that we can develop a system which will meet all of the needs regardless of where it happened or what the nature of the illness or disability is.

How do we go forward in trying to bring together this hodgepodge of different programs and set it into something complete? The former government, of which I was a member, had begun a fairly involved piece of work around this very issue, and indeed the Ministry of Treasury and Economics had been asked to begin preparing issues and options. I think the Treasurer would certainly know, and other members might be interested in finding out, exactly how far that work had advanced.

It is because of that that I believe, in the three months from now until the end of June, there is plenty of time to take all of that work and put it into a kind of green paper consultation document, issues and options, and to initiate a process. Not that that will be completed -- obviously it will not -- but the government can determine whether perhaps to give this issue to a select committee, to a standing committee, to a task force or even to set up a royal commission, because in the work that we were doing, we had plotted out that it would take approximately a year and a half to two years to complete that consultation process, which would still leave within the mandate of the present government to develop legislation that could then come to this House before the end of 1994.

There is urgency to this because as I said before, when we look at comments that we have all made in this House around these problems, we have been struck by the need to move on this issue. It is required, it is needed, it is doable, and there is an opportunity that is presented to us now to ensure that this goes forward. I think in the normal course of events, I would hope that all members could see fit not only to accept the principle that is set forth in this motion, but also to accept that the time frame is reasonable, that a consultation document can be prepared and sent out within three months, and that what is being asked here is simply to initiate a process of broad public consultation that will take a good period of time to make sure that we hear from everybody.

In the final analysis, we will be helping the ordinary people of this province so that when they are injured or become ill, whether it is at work, at home, in the car or wherever, there will be in place a system that will ensure that they receive adequate and proper compensation.

I will be reserving some time for later.

Mr Carr: I want to compliment the member for taking the time to put together this resolution. I will speak on it very briefly.

I guess like a lot of us we have a lot of questions and I guess that is why we are going to be talking about doing some consulting on it. I think that is a good idea. Questions such as how much it will cost and how much it is going to cost to administer it I think come to mind. I think all members of this House know the WCB situation that is out there. Quite literally, our offices can spend up to half their days dealing with those problems. So anything that would work to improve the system I think would be very worth while.

The big question is, how does that get incorporated, and with that system not working well, how would this system improve it? I think, as members know, labour groups and business and everybody believes that there should be a lot of room for improvement with workers' compensation right now. So I guess the big question that would have to be asked as part of this consultation is, how is it going to work? We have all heard the gut-wrenching situations that come before us as a result of the workers' compensation program, and how we tackle that over the next little while is going to be a very critical question.

Again, I guess, as the Treasurer reminds us, the big question is one of timing. We are now in a situation where we have a $3-billion deficit, and it may be higher. It would be interesting to see exactly how this would affect it. Would it be, as the member says, where we would eliminate a lot of the overlap and the patchwork and the duplication? If that was the case I think it would be good, but we must spell out very clearly how that would work, particularly in light of the financial situation that the province is in at this particular time.

I think one thing to bear in mind, though, is that you can right now get disability insurance on your own, although it is a fairly costly program and I think most people do not go and do it. I guess insurance is like anything else; you never think about it until you need it, other than auto insurance, which is fairly high-profile now. So it would be interesting to see how that would affect the private sector that is now providing some of the disability insurance and how we are going to have some of the programs work with our private sector. Many of us have worked in industry where we got disability insurance, and how we are going to incorporate that is going to be very difficult. Do those programs die as a result of this? Would it really be cheaper?

We are talking about a very complex situation. Because quite frankly, other than by talking to my wife, I did not realize that we sometimes do have disability insurance. When you start with a job, you do not get a chance sometimes to read all the brochures and so on, and many of us very often are covered and we do not even know it. My chief financial officer, my wife, keeps me very informed of that situation quite often, and thank goodness she is in charge of it. I think she would be a great Treasurer and maybe some day she will take over this seat.

But these are some of the questions that I think are very important and very critical because it is an extremely complex problem. When we talk about taking it out of general revenue, I think the people of this province are going to be very concerned.

However, having said that, I think we have programs right now that we have put in place -- and I think a typical example of that would be the welfare system -- where we put in place very well-meaning ideas, and we find ourselves now with the municipalities unable to keep up with their 20% share. So things change very dramatically and very quickly. Something that is a very worthwhile and excellent program, like our social assistance, we put in place and we say, "Okay, the province will not fund all of it; 20% will be funded by the municipalities." Then whammo, when it goes up like it has, municipalities cannot keep up and they are facing some very dire, difficult circumstances. So when we put these funding mechanisms in place, we are going to have to be very careful to lay out very clearly the responsibilities.

I guess that gets back to the underlying question we talked about even in this House yesterday as part of the Constitution: How will these patchwork programs work? The money that is kicked in by the federal government, the provincial government, the municipal government -- how will it work? I guess we will know very shortly who will have the responsibility for these types of programs. I know this program is very dear to the Treasurer's heart and I know he has been pushing for it. It would be interesting to see some of his ideas and philosophies, because I know he has pushed for it in the past and I know the Premier has mentioned it as well.

How we put together this patchwork, I guess, is the most difficult thing. I have some very serious concerns about how that would work. I guess the reality is now that it looks like we are going to be pushing ahead with auto insurance. I think the Premier said as late as yesterday, that before the end of this session we will have an auto insurance program which presumably will talk about coverage. If we are going to push ahead with that, it would seem very strange if we were then to dismantle that as a result of having something along the lines of a universal disability program. While it may be very well intended, if we were to do it we would probably have said, "Okay, let's hold off on the auto insurance and take a look at this universality program before we do it." Since we are not going to do that, I think it is going to be very difficult, and I would not suggest that we bring in the auto insurance, put together all the consultation that will need to be done in that area and then a year from now dismantle that and say, "Oh no, we've got this universality program."

I guess that is the unfortunate problem we face here, that we put something in place and then we have to dismantle it. So I think it is very worth while to look at long term but, knowing the government's agenda and the fact that it wants to bring in the auto insurance, I think it is going to be very, very difficult to do that. We can see how it is a very complex problem. I think the honourable member's bringing this resolution forward is very worth while, because that is what we need to do. We need to start planning long term, rather than having short-term fixes, and I am in favour of that.

There are a tremendous amount of questions and unfortunately not too many answers, but I guess that is true not only in this area but in a lot of them. We look forward to spending some time, in the long term, analysing these problems and taking a look at them. As we go forward, these are some of my preliminary comments and thoughts on the program.

1020

Mr O'Connor: It is my pleasure to rise today and speak on this debate around the resolution presented by the honourable member for York North. I must ask why he has brought the resolution forward today, because he has had the opportunity to debate it and vote on it in the last Parliament. On 11 May 1989 the resolution was presented by the honourable member for Windsor-Riverside. It has been presented many times and voted down.

I am pleased that "that was then and this is now," because we now have a government that is far more responsible. We have a cabinet that recognizes the need and has struck a committee of eight parliamentary assistants to look at the matter. The Chair of the committee is the parliamentary assistant to a long-time supporter of comprehensive disability compensation and now the Treasurer of Ontario.

The debate around universal disability insurance has taken place many times, and I have been led to believe that even more government studies have taken place in the past. What we do not need now is another series of studies, another review panel, another royal commission or to start another consultation process. What we need to do is wait for the parliamentary assistants' committee to report to cabinet.

I found some interesting things in Hansard from previous debates. One member even stated in this House, and I found it quite interesting:

"At this point in time, there is no province in Canada that has a socialist government. I think that says something about the mood of the people of Canada, quite frankly."

The time and the mood of Canadians have changed, and I am proud to be part of this first socialist or social democratic government of Ontario.

I am sure all the members of this House realize that if we had a system of universal sickness and accident benefits, many of the problems and inequities and the unfairness could be resolved. As a member of a trade union, Canadian Auto Workers, Local 222, I enjoyed the coverage of a universal sickness and accident benefits program that was negotiated at the bargaining table.

All too often, people living in this province have had to rely on unemployment insurance and, as a last resort, go to welfare. I am glad we have a committee looking at this serious situation.

One of the first things this committee will have to do is to find out how to organize the system and how the system is to be paid for, and it will have to look at the possibilities of assessment. The problem is very complex, and I feel the resolution presented here today puts an unrealistic time frame on this government for us to act in a responsible manner.

The member for Leeds-Grenville said in this House in an earlier debate that we must look at the overall impact, and I believe that the parliamentary assistants' committee is capable and will do just that. I believe the discussion should take place in a less partisan way, and I am sure those of the committee that has been struck will listen to the honourable members' comments, even the honourable member for York North.

It is unfortunate the member presenting this resolution today was not in the House during the last debate on this matter. If he had been, he might have been the only member in his caucus who would have stood there and voted against the resolution as presented in May 1989 during the last Parliament.

I am going to vote against this motion because I feel it is redundant when this government has already struck a committee of parliamentary assistants, representing so many different ministries. I am sure the government will act in a timely fashion on the resolution presented today, so I am going to vote against it.

Mrs Sullivan: I am very pleased to participate in this debate, and I want to congratulate the member for York North for bringing forward what I believe is an important and farsighted proposal that has been placed in a non-partisan manner so the issue can be considered on its merits and not on superfluous argumentation such as we have just heard.

I participated in the debate in May 1989 on a resolution of very similar content that was put forward by the now Minister of Housing. I believe that resolution would have passed this Legislature and action would have been taken had the resolution not been framed in what was an overly partisan manner. There was certainly support on our side of the House. This concept has had support in my party for many years and certainly it has had support in the government party for many years.

I believe members of this House should support the principle of this bill and provide all of the House the opportunity to explore the concept further. I do not think the resolution should be set aside. It deals with issues of equality and equity. It comes to terms with a fundamental unfairness in how we treat people who are disabled, because right now we say it is not the disability that alters a person's opportunity that matters but how the disability occurred, whether it is on the job, at birth, in an auto accident, in a backyard, on a municipal street or being a victim of crime.

The future of people, the dignity with which they live their lives, their opportunity to share to their maximum capacity, is different and there is no logic to that difference. It is to our shame, all of our shame, that we have not dealt with this inequity in the past. The member for York North's resolution provides an opportunity for all members of the House to say: "That's right, there is inequity. Let's determine what we can do as representatives and as advocates to correct it." Let's look at how existing programs can fold in, whether they are auto insurance, private disability insurance, public support programs or workers' compensation. Let's look at funding alternatives, at the options of public programs, private programs or a melding of public and private mechanisms.

Let's look at how we can integrate into the same scheme people who have been forced to lose their incomes and people who never had an income. Let's look at how families can and should be treated. Let's look at how we can cut the costs of administration and the overlapping programs and put the savings either into benefits or into lowering the costs of coverage. Let's look at what specific services must be included and what services could be provided as options and how we can ensure that the person in Cornwall or Renfrew or North Bay can access those services as readily as people in Toronto.

Let's look at the economic consequences of a universal program, the impacts on the labour market, the GATT implications and the implications for our competitiveness. Let's look at the costs and the benefits. Let's examine whether one province can go it alone and how we can get the issue back on the national table, where it was when Marc Lalonde was Minister of Finance. Let's look at other jurisdictions -- New Zealand, for example -- where it is working, where it is failing, the salient features of other programs that have been put forward.

I believe that it is time for us to examine this issue in depth and that members should be singular participants in that. In the last debate, on the resolution of the member for Windsor-Riverside, I indicated that I was concerned about integrating workers' compensation into a social services network and that we ought to be careful not to confuse workers' compensation with the welfare program. That is not what drives workers' compensation. Over the past two years with my colleagues in my caucus we have been able to put more time in that, and I am now less convinced of the difficulty of integrating workers' compensation into a universal program.

I hope the members of the governing party will support this resolution so we can get to work on this. I urge those members of the government party not to get caught up on technical arguments. In terms of the change that could come about, it could be the single most important decision that members will make while they are in this House and the single most important contribution that they will make to their families, their communities, their province and their country. I hope they will take the chance of making a difference.

1030

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to compliment and congratulate my colleague the member for York North for his private member's bill. I want to put on the record a little bit of the honourable member's background. He actually got his start in politics as a civil servant working for the government of Ontario back in the days when there was a Progressive Conservative government in place, and he got some excellent training in the ministries operated by the Honourable René Brunelle from Cochrane North and the late Fern Guindon from Cornwall. With that kind of background he is excellent material for leadership of the Liberal Party, and I certainly wish him well. I hope he has more planks in his platform than he has presented here this morning, because I have some reservations about his private member's bill.

First of all, I believe he is trying to out-NDP the NDP. That may be a little bit difficult, but I think that is part of his mission here this morning. I think we have to explore to a great degree the suggestions of a universal disability insurance plan. It sounds great, but the former government brought in a support and custody branch with the Ministry of the Attorney General, and I have to tell members that I have had a lot of my constituents phone and express a great deal of disappointment with the way that branch of the government presently operates. It sounds good to the 99.9% of the people who do not use that ministry, but to those who have the opportunity of getting recorded messages upon recorded messages when they really want to speak to a real person, there is a problem, and to many of the problems that are faced by the people who are looking to have their support and custody requirements met, there is not an easy solution.

However, we have to speak to real people, address their problems and possibly find a solution. I am a little afraid that a universal disability insurance may wind up in that general, a grey area that says to those people who are not requiring the services, "The government has in place a mechanism to look after everything," until you have to deal with it and then it becomes very, very difficult. This is the kind of legislation I am afraid it might turn out to be.

Following the election, the Premier made comments that have caused some speculation. I believe the previous speaker from the government side, in saying he was not going to support my colleague's private member's bill this morning, effectively said, "Yes, we can be more left than this." That is fine. This is a social democratic government, and I guess that is its raison d'être. I guess we are going to see more and more of this.

My problem is that we have seen it to some degree with the previous government, the Peterson government, and I will cite some examples. Requirements were put on all of our school boards, without funding: "You will have class sizes no more than XYZ; however, no money." Or: "You employers have to pay an employer's health tax of 1.95% of your payroll." We eliminate the universal requirement for premiums on health care, but who bears the brunt? The employers -- municipalities, hospitals, school boards -- through an employer's health tax costing a fortune, with no funding.

In 1985 this province had a 10% tax advantage over Quebec, and I come from a riding adjacent to that province. Now, a short six years later, we are in a deficit position of several percentage points. We are taxed more, as residents and business people of this province, than are our friends over in Quebec. I think it bears repeating that businesses will slowly, if not quickly, drift away from this province as we continue to nail them with higher taxes. We are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America, and I am afraid this type of legislation would not at all alleviate or improve that situation.

I think the Premier was looking at a universal disability insurance program in conjunction with his proposed auto insurance package, and some of the deletions from cabinet we have seen in the last couple of weeks seem to match the puzzle quite well.

Mr Owens: Shame, shame.

Mr Villeneuve: Yes, it is a bit of a shame that it happened in that type of environment, and the real cause is still unknown as to why the former minister in charge of auto insurance was relegated to the back benches. He may have poor judgement, but surely that is not the only reason, and that question is still unanswered.

Unfortunately, the Premier provided little in the way of details for such a plan, and of course there is no known model for such a plan anywhere in North America or even anywhere in the world. Apparently, the Premier was inspired by a SARC recommendation calling for a universal no-fault insurance program for all Ontarians against all kinds of disabilities, sicknesses, injuries, etc. However, how this will be funded, how it will be looked after, is still an unknown quantity.

From the Premier's comments, it has been speculated that he is certainly contemplating such a plan and it is all part of the overall picture in replacing auto insurance compensation as we have known it and as we now have it with the former government's plan in place. The report was silent on how such insurance would be funded. One can only speculate. Drivers, of course, would contribute. Those people who are on salary would probably contribute in a direct or indirect way. And of course the employers, the corporate residents of this province, would certainly pay their share and likely more. Nothing comes free, and I am sorry to say this would be again a very expensive way.

There would be abuses. I say that as a person who has a large rural constituency. One of my major problems is with the Workers' Compensation Board, and there is no easy solution to that, as you know, Mr Speaker. You have constituency work as well and you could probably echo my very words. This is a non-political statement that indeed major problems are being faced by elected people in this Legislature pertaining to WCB.

A universal plan sounds great. However, there are the mechanisms. I hope that the sponsoring member, the member for York North, will explain further how the cost would be borne, by whom. That is of great concern. We cannot continue to punish the residents of Ontario, the businesses of Ontario, for social programs that sometimes are abused.

Mr Hope: Just looking at the resolution in itself, in part it is an excellent resolution. It has a downfall, though. There is a time frame that is put forward in that resolution dealing with universal disability. It is a key thing that I share some of the concerns the member across has raised about people coming into our offices who have fallen through the gap, people who question whether a paycheque was going to be in their hands by next week or not. The ability to make payments on their mortgages or put food on their table was a big question. These were challenges that I as a person in my previous life was faced with from most sectors that were around us.

As we look at the universal disability compensation system, insurance program, it is an excellent idea, I feel. As a member of the committee which was formed by this government made up of parliamentary assistants, we have sat down since November examining this issue, making sure that we put a clear focus, a clear vision in what we see and how we can fund it.

1040

Some of the questions that have been put forward today are some of the major questions we must address. There was the issue that dealt with the disabled, those who fall through the gaps, those who have maybe not purchased private insurance. These are the things that we must address. I reflect on this issue for the simple fact that most of us who are male and have wives who may be domestic engineers with no value put to their job as far as a paycheque is concerned, when a disability occurs to that person's spouse, it causes large financial difficulty for that family to maintain that service that domestic engineer has provided for us. These are some of the questions we must address.

Looking at the time frame, it is one of the major important things. It wants us to move very quickly, but quickly leads to error, and as we talk about the workers' compensation system or we talk about the Ontario motorist protection plan, just in those time frames, the changes in Bill 162 and the new legislation dealing with auto insurance, we have seen the problems. We have to correct the problems in making sure of the proper system, making sure that the funding mechanism is there and making sure that for those who deserve the funding, compensation is consistent in their homes and for them. We must make sure that we have it.

The unfortunate part today is that the Chair of the committee, because of prior commitments dealing with his riding, which is a major issue, is unable to be here today, but I want to emphasize that he shares a lot of the same concerns that I do. As a person who sat on the other side knocking on politicians' doors before, looking for a fix to some of the gaps that were there, we are doing that. We are moving, and we want to make sure that we move in a clear vision, a clear focus for the people of Ontario to make sure that the funding mechanisms, the concerns under workers' compensation, the concerns that lie around, are well addressed and clearly addressed.

I want to thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity, and I will be voting against it for the one major reason of the June time frame that is put before us.

Mr Offer: Let me say at the outset what a pleasure it is for me to take part in this debate on the motion put forward by the member for York North, and indeed to carry on the remarks not only of the honourable member but also of the member for Halton Centre. Let me indicate that I speak in full support of this motion, and in the time permitted to me I would like to explain why.

We must recognize in this Legislature that there are a number of programs in existence designed to compensate for a variety of reasons. We have the automobile protection plan, the workers' compensation system, we have the Gains program, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. We have programs on the basis of private plans as well as plans as the result of collective bargaining, all plans designed in part to compensate for injury, a variety of injury. Each of these particular models runs separately. Each has its own system of delivery and its own eligibility criteria.

We must recognize that, even with this myriad of plans, not everyone is covered. Not all injuries are those which result in compensation, and as a result, disparities or inequities occur. Benefits are different.

We must recognize, and I am sure everyone in this Legislature recognizes, that where injury occurs, there is in many cases a pain to one's family apart from the injury, however occasioned, which has occurred. It is a real pain, it is substantial, and I believe that if there is a method to address this terrible hurt, this way of injury to one's standard of living, then we as legislators have an obligation. Indeed, it is our responsibility to address the matter.

In that respect, I take note of the comments of the members of the government side, who have today for the first time indicated that there is a parliamentary assistants' committee designed to address this issue. We have not seen this type of committee. We have not seen the mandate for the committee. We have not seen the timetable for the committee. May I state that it is our responsibility as legislators of this House to address this issue and not just one clique in terms of government members.

Many have spoken about the cost of such a program. It sounds like a great deal of money. What is the cost and who is to pay? These are valid questions. I believe that it may be the case, a suspicion, if you will, on my part at this time, that with a program, the principle of which is embraced in the motion by the member for York North, potentially more people will be covered, more injuries compensable, and that indeed it will be done in an efficient and an economical way.

It was only yesterday that the Premier, in his speech to this Legislature on the Constitution, spoke to an issue of division of powers. He spoke of what municipalities in an increasing way are referring to as disentanglement, of taking a look at what is provided by whom. Is that done in the most efficient and effective way, of potentially disentangling that which has happened and rebuilding? Is that not indeed the principle under this particular motion?

Let us take a look at the different forms of models for which compensation is provided. Let us see if it is done in the most effective, efficient and economical way. Let us see, by virtue of potentially disentangling those particular programs, that we can rebuild into a single program which will bring in more people, more types of injury and deal with it in an economical and efficient manner.

We as legislators, and not just as a series of eight parliamentary assistants, should not be afraid to investigate this area. In fact, as legislators, as members elected to this particular Legislature, we should be enthusiastic in approaching this issue.

Finally, in the area of consultation I note with some dejection the comments made by the member for Durham-York and the member for Chatham-Kent as to the time frame. They do not like this motion because of the time frame, being June of this year. Consultation is a necessity: consultation with labour, consultation with business, consultation with municipalities, consultation over the principle, consultation over the issues and how those issues can be addressed. To say that they will vote against this motion on the basis that the consultation is to take place by the month of June is, I say, to deny the particular principle.

The Premier has spoken in glowing terms of a committee dealing with the Constitution. I see that the Chairman of that constitutional committee is here today and the Chairman will know that we will be dealing with matters of re-Confederation, of a variety of issues and implications, such as economic implications, on different forms of powers and redistribution of powers, and we will be reporting by the end of June of this year.

Surely if it is good enough for a select committee on the Constitution to address these very complicated issues, and to be doing so with the support of the Premier, then members on the government side can embrace that form of consultation and have this particular motion and these particular issues dealt with by another committee of this Legislature, again reporting back to this Legislature by June of this year. It is no excuse to say that consultation cannot be effectively done by June. If it is enough for this constitutional committee, it should be enough for the principles embraced in this motion.

In closing, I support this motion. I support the good words of the member for York North and the member for Halton Centre in terms of the need to address a demonstrated need, to do so in an efficient, effective and economical manner and to do so in the spirit of consultation.

1050

Mr Perruzza: I rise today in support of the resolution by the member for York North in principle, and I support the idea and the concept of universality and universal insurances on many fronts.

When you look at the current system, as the member accurately outlined a little while ago in his speech, there are a number of existing programs which are currently on the books which, quite frankly, are not working very well. I am afraid that holes are being punctured in the armour of those programs and you have the blood of victims and their families gushing through. In some way we have to move to seal those gaps, to link the cracks and some of the programs. To reiterate, we have the Workers' Compensation Board, CPP, no-fault auto insurance now, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, unemployment insurance, private long-term disability insurance and so on. The list goes on. As the member indicated, we have uneven access to cash benefits in those systems. Coverage depends on cause and degree of disability, labour force participation, whether the employer provides long-term disability insurance or not, replacement rates, earnings ceilings that vary from program to program, and the list goes on and on and on. I think that at some point we as a government and as a Legislature -- I would hope this is a non-partisan issue -- must move to revamp the system.

However, I regret that what we are doing here and what this resolution does in fact is it plays politics with the lives of people. I think that we have a government here -- I am certainly going to support this resolution -- that could support it overwhelmingly. However, the time lines that have been established by the member for York North's motion are unrealistic on a number of fronts.

My colleague to the left indicates that my time is almost up and I suspect I could speak for several days on this particular subject. I will wind up by saying that I regret that we are playing politics with this issue. I am going to support the resolution and I suspect that a number of my colleagues are inclined to do the same, but I think that their reservations are going to be very similar in nature. There is a structure in place now to look at this in a comprehensive, long-term way and I think that we would do well to move in that direction.

I would like to indicate and clarify something that one of the honourable members opposite, the member for Halton Centre, indicated. She talked about the member for Windsor-Riverside's resolution here some time ago in the House. She was on the government side of the House when the member for Windsor-Riverside talked about universal disability insurance. The member for Halton Centre voted against the member for Windsor-Riverside's motion at that time and it struck me that she brought this up in her own discussion here this morning and I find that a little awkward. I cannot help but reiterate the line that they have been tossing at us for a number of weeks now: That was then, I say to the member for Halton Centre, this is now.

Mr White: I am pleased to be able to speak on this resolution. Prior to becoming a professional social worker, I worked in welfare myself. Daily I saw the pain and humiliation that disadvantaged people who were disadvantaged because of accident or illness were forced to endure. Much of that humiliation was produced by the gaps in our social support system.

There were different eligibility criteria for the Canada pension plan, for workers' compensation, for unemployment insurance, for long-term disability, for auto insurance, for Gains-D. Injured workers and disabled people in general were put through more hoops and had to know more about legislation and regulation; they had to know it backwards, forwards and sideways. Having suffered a disability through illness or accident, they then had to face the humiliation of not being able to support themselves or their families and had to apply for welfare because those other programs were not accessible. On top of that, they had to prove to some bureaucrat that they matched that program's criterion. The program was not designed for them. It was designed for itself.

Whether that program was provincial, federal, municipal, public, private, out of the whole panoply of them I began to think that there was a reason for this multiplicity of programs. Perhaps there could be some real financial savings if we had programs that were not accessible. The more difficult it is to access a program, the more likely it is that injured or disabled people will just give up and fall back on welfare assistance.

That was the situation almost 20 years ago. I cannot say it has substantially changed since then. The SARC report indicted some 30% of the GWA and FBA case load is made up of the disabled or the ill, more than 100,000 cases in this province.

I know that the member for York North was a concerned and capable minister and I am sure that he tried in the last two years of his government to implement a universal disability program. However, my friend the member for York North was unable to effect this program or to demonstrate any evidence of any intent from his government to effect such a program. We have heard about many very progressive pieces of legislation that were going to be forthcoming. We have not seen any evidence of them in the last five years. I am sure that he must have been very frustrated. His colleagues were not willing or able to support him at that time. But this is now. Now they are willing to support him. I am glad to hear that they have become increasingly progressive since last September.

Now he wishes to establish an agenda for us, a timetable for us, a structure for us to --

The Deputy Speaker: The time has expired. Thank you. The member for York North.

Mr Beer: In the time left I would like to comment on some of the things that have been said in the debate, but I would at the outset like to thank all the honourable members for participating and for a number of the questions that have been raised, which I think are very legitimate ones and in terms of the process I am talking about would be important to be reviewed and examined. That is one of the points behind this particular resolution. But I want to say to the members opposite who have concerns about the time frame that I think there is, quite frankly, some misunderstanding of what it is that is being suggested in my motion.

Let's go back to first principles and remember why we are putting this forward in the first place. Quite simply, it is that there are too many disabled and injured people in this province, as has been said, who have been denied critically needed benefits because what we have got is a patchwork quilt. What we are trying to do here is to make sure that people do not have to live lives of poverty and desperation, that we can actually do something, begin a process that within the mandate of this government is going to see real change in the system we have.

We know that we are spending something in the order of $6.5 billion in this province on various disability programs. We agree that is not good enough, that there is overlap that is poorly administered. We have got to bring that together.

The fact that it is part of a previous government -- we did not do everything that we might have wanted -- I think is irrelevant. The point is that now we have this issue before us we have an opportunity to go forward.

On the question of process, members should read the motion very carefully. It does not say everything is going to be completed by the end of June. In point of fact, in Treasury -- and I urge members to go to the Treasurer -- the documents are there, setting out a time frame of approximately two years for a consultative process that ends in legislation before the government mandate is up. What I have asked for here is to initiate the process.

The government tells us there is this parliamentary assistants' committee, a committee that I think few in this province have ever heard of. As my friend mentioned, if the select committee on Ontario in Confederation can deal with those issues and make a report by the end of June, surely the parliamentary assistants, together with Treasury, can get out before the end of June an issues and options document, not a full-blown government policy but what are the issues, what are the options, mentioned by my friends in the Conservative Party as well as on the government side and here, questions that we need to ask. That can be done. Then the consultative process begins. This does not say it is the beginning and the end.

It is a red herring to say the time frame is leading members opposite to vote against it. I have to ask members opposite, when they look at this, are they in favour of the principle? This parliamentary assistants' committee has been in existence since November. Surely it is within the intelligence of the government to put out an issues and options paper and begin a consultative process. That is what this motion is asking for. If they vote against it, then it is they who are playing politics with this issue and playing with the people whose lives are affected.

The principle is clear: There is a process and it is private members' hour. Members opposite do not need to listen to the whips. They are free to vote as they wish in private members' hour. I commend my colleague the member for Downsview for having the courage to do that. I urge the rest of the members opposite to do it, because they support the principle. The time frame is adequate. Together we can do this. Let's start something now.

1100

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Villeneuve moved second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Mr Villeneuve: I do not think this will create a great deal of controversy, but it has to go through the normal channels, and this is part of it. Simply put, Bill 31 is to change the name of the riding I very proudly represent from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, which is a very historical part of eastern Ontario, to S-D-G & East Grenville.

Under redistribution of 1986, the riding I proudly represent was expanded to include approximately the eastern half of the county of Grenville. In this very proud area we have five municipalities with a total population of 14,560, or approximately 25% of the entire population of the riding I represent. We have the second-largest town in the riding, Kemptville, a very progressive town known for the Kemptville College of Agricultural Technology; it also has the eastern headquarters for the Ministry of Government Services. The Ministry of Natural Resources plays a very important role in the management of natural resources in eastern Ontario. Of course, we have the Kemptville District Hospital and a number of other very important aspects, making it the second-largest town, with a population of almost 2,500, in the riding I represent.

The village of Cardinal, almost 1,600 in population, is the home of Casco and Best Foods, sometimes referred to as Canada Starch, the major employer in that town and a major processor of Ontario corn. Certainly those people, I think, have to be recognized in the name of the riding.

The township of Edwardsburgh is largely a rural municipality, very important to the economy of Grenville county, and indeed its present reeve, David Sloan, is the warden of the united counties of Leeds and Grenville.

South Gower is a smaller rural municipality, some 1,600 in population, rapidly growing and presently welcoming many people who are employed in the city of Ottawa but who travel south of the Rideau River to call South Gower their home. Likewise, there is the municipality of Oxford-on-Rideau, expanding very rapidly along the shores of the historical Rideau River, with a population of some 4,600 and one of the more rapidly growing areas, not only in Grenville county but in the riding I represent.

As members see, it has been very difficult to explain to the residents, 25% of the people that I represent, why the name of East Grenville has not been included in the riding name. I have tried on different occasions to have the name changed. Initially it was to be known as Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville. However, in the interest of brevity that particular name was considered to be too cumbersome and too long, and I understand that, without belittling the great and historical riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, often referred to -- probably more often than not -- as SD&G.

Incidentally, this is the plaid of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders. It is the Macdonell of Glengarry -- a fighting unit very highly recognized for many years. They were affectionately referred to as the SD&G Highlanders, and when I say "affectionately," sometimes they would be SD&G as for "sand, dust and gravel," but that was always in a very loving and joking way; they were known as one of the best regiments in the area.

It is always intriguing when I tell people who visit eastern Ontario -- the riding stretches from the Ontario-Quebec border to the town of Prescott -- on your mileage odometer you travel about a third of the distance to Toronto, in the riding I very proudly represent, as you come in from Quebec and travel to the outskirts of the town of Prescott. We are very proud of the fact that Ontario history effectively began in that area of the province. It is certainly the home of many United Empire Loyalists and many, many people of French background who came from Quebec 100 years ago or so to make their home in eastern Ontario. We have the united counties of Leeds and Grenville, immediately west of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, and of course the united and historical counties of Prescott and Russell, represented by my colleague over here, effectively north of Highway 417.

Two very major arteries run through the riding I represent, Highway 417 and Highway 401, and we are fighting very hard to have Highway 16 twinned into a four-lane highway. According to the Ministry of Transportation, this will be occurring, hopefully, before the turn of the century. Indeed, from the south, from the Johnstown Bridge to the nation's capital, we will have a road worthy to be the main artery leading from the United States to the capital of Canada.

1110

I will have the opportunity of replying to some of my colleagues but, in speaking with them, I have found there is very little opposition to changing the name of the riding I represent. I realize it will be the first time -- I believe the first time -- that initials will be utilized. However, I want to touch on another subject that is part and parcel of the redistribution. I represent a large rural riding, as do many elected people to this Legislature. There are 23 very active municipalities in the riding I represent, and under redistribution the criterion was that we were aiming for 74,000 of population and we would allow 25% variation either way. When you are dealing with a large rural area and your largest town, as in my case, is the great metropolis of Alexandria, with 3,300 people, and the second-largest is Kemptville, with some 2,500 population, it takes an awful lot of rural routes and small towns and villages in rural Ontario to get to your required population base.

I firmly believe that prior to the next redistribution we will have to look at and designate certain ridings as rural, because if we continue to try and meet a population criterion we will effectively have members running large and vast geographical areas trying to satisfy the population requirement and in so doing reduce effective representation by the person who is here at Queen's Park. Members have to remember that I am four and a half hours away from my home; whether I travel by car, by train or by plane, it really does not matter a great deal. It is that kind of time frame that you need to get from Queen's Park to my home, which is quite centrally located within the riding I represent.

I know northern Ontario has a criterion that meets some geographical, commonsense issues, and I think we have to look at that in the rural areas under any new redistribution. The population criterion would either be different or there would be some sort of commonsense approach that says, "An individual member of this Legislature can only service a certain-sized area." I think that has to be incorporated. I would strongly support any legislation which would recognize our rural agricultural areas as areas that would be treated somewhat differently than the sprawling, rapidly expanding urban areas which can meet population criteria quite quickly.

I will reserve the rest of my time to reply to my colleagues, and I fully anticipate that they will be supporting my private member's motion and that before the Legislature recesses in June, the great riding I very proudly represent will be know as S-D-G & East Grenville.

Mr Owens: I proudly rise in support of the honourable member's motion. On 18 December 1990 the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry presented private member's Bill 31, requesting that the name of his riding be changed from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry to S-D-G & East Grenville.

I believe every sitting member recognizes the significance of his own electoral district and believes the name of that district should reflect the geographical area. The electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry did in fact reflect the riding's geographical boundaries until redistribution in 1987. At that time the riding was expanded to indicate the illustrious area of eastern Grenville county. It seems only appropriate then that after the redistribution of 1987 we should include this new area in the electoral district name. But electoral district names can become unwieldy in length. Since this new district of the honourable PC member seems far too long to manoeuvre verbally, let alone to be used on letterhead or business cards, it seems most appropriate to use abbreviations.

The honourable member, I am sure, after a great amount of consultation, came up with the most appropriate name for his electoral district: S-D-G & East Grenville. Some wags have taken to describe the new electoral district, S-D-G, as sand, dust and gravel. However, personally I believe and I take it to mean strength, determination and generosity.

I would like to take a moment to talk about a family living just outside of Cornwall. The family members are, of course, constituents of the honourable member. Maurice and Theresa Gagné are probably two of the most generous people I have ever had the pleasure of meeting. Their daughter Manon, along with her husband, Roy, is a constituent of mine. I can tell members that the values of hard work and generosity have been successfully passed down to the Gagné children. By the way, Theresa Gagné has a sparerib recipe that would knock the socks off of any rib lover.

The honourable member once related to me a story about two other constituents of his who were having difficulty during these terrible economic times. One was a furniture store owner and the other was in sales of another kind. Because sales were slow for the purchaser of a suite of furniture, she was unable to make payments. Again, because of the generous nature of the honourable member's constituents, the customer was able to keep the furniture and the store owner was able to keep a customer.

I would like to return to a more historical context. The honourable member has told this House of the historical significance of using the initials of the three large cities. Back in the days of wartime, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry had the SD&G Highlanders, who proudly wore the Macdonell of Glengarry plaid as their fighting colours. I would like to point out that the honourable member is wearing a tie of those very colours. To this day the initials SDG are recognized as those of the county, and it seems quite logical, and certainly less cumbersome, to change the riding name and use the letters SDG.

Located in the most southeasterly section of this great province, this electoral district should include in its name the 14,568 people who live in eastern Grenville. Indeed, I am sure the noble citizenry -- pardon the pun -- of this section of town feel quite strongly about the importance of a name change to reflect their geographic identity. Certainly the honourable member is doing his duty by proposing to this House, in the form of a private member's bill, this important name change.

Sometimes in our overspecific language we leave out important aspects of our society. We have now recognized that as being important. I think the Premier's speech last night wants us to recognize that this is a society of inclusiveness rather than of exclusiveness. The current name of this electoral district is overspecific and therefore excludes the very important area of eastern Grenville. This is just as inappropriate, as I am sure the honourable members would agree, as using sexist language which excludes 50% of our society. Indeed, we have learned the mistakes of our language and that language is important and does convey messages and does reflect on our views of society. Only we as citizens and individuals can work towards using language that is inclusive. Of course, this will be again reflected in the change of the name of the electoral district to accurately reflect the geographical area.

In closing, I would certainly like to commend the honourable member for requesting a name change and hope that his private member's bill can be passed expeditiously.

1120

Mr Elston: As unaccustomed as I am to speaking in the chamber, I would like to join the discussion today on the change in name of this particular electoral district. I note with some sadness that we will lose the designation of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as part of the formal electoral district name. I have nothing against the short form, because it has been often used, and I am sure common parlance locally is to use SDG to help people who want to get to the point of their arguments much quicker so they do not have to wrap their tongues around all three names.

But I think it comes as a great surprise for those people looking for the continuity of a term, which appeared in the gathering places of Ontario since the early part of the 1800s, that as of the passing of this act there will be a passing of the words Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry into a sort of antiquity. I know the reference to the area is still there by the use of the short form, but my experience has been and the experience I think of all of us in general is that once you remove the names there is a removal and a loss for all time of some of those traditional thoughts associated with those names and, of course, what proud history that area has always had.

The history of it has been well studied, I am sure, by most of us as youngsters, as we grew up through a system of education that spent, in the early days of my education at least, somewhat more time on the historical evolution of our province -- maybe not as complete as it ought to have been, but I think it was more complete in some aspects of our history than we now see our youngsters being exposed to.

There is for a number of people a problem with becoming familiar with all of Ontario's history, but at least when you go through the list of electoral districts you can follow the historical derivation of a lot of the social context within which we currently find ourselves. Take a look, for instance, at some of the ridings here in the city of Toronto, in Metropolitan Toronto. You will note there is a designation of those electoral districts along the lines of the old villages that used to be here. If you go up and down the subway stops, you will note that the stops are Davisville and St Andrew and St Patrick and a whole series of other designations that talk about the old central focuses of settlements in the days gone by. The effort there is quite clear, that it is necessary and proper in a modern society like ours that we leave the signposts that helped us get to where we are going.

The people who live in Riverdale or who live in the Beaches or who live at Woodbine were quite correct when they decided, honestly and up front, that it would be in the best interests of their areas to preserve their history by preserving the full name of the villages in which the initial early settlements occurred. What great history the Beaches has in Toronto, for instance. What great history there is in High Park. What great history there is in so many other of the centres in Metropolitan Toronto as the sprawling growth has taken over those small villages and has consumed them into a larger existence.

I know the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. If this bill passes, obviously this will be about the last time we will refer to him that way in this House, at least after we get the third reading; it will be no longer the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry but the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. I know the member says it is the same thing, but for the people who used to be interested in hearing Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, we would hear it no more officially here in this forum.

I am not trying to make anything out of it except to express my concern about the historical loss. The member himself spoke about the need to protect the representation of areas with substantial historical significance in the evolution of our history. In fact, they have played a great part and a great role in the development of Ontario's fabric in Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, but from now on there will be no more Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry electoral district; it will be S-D-G & East Grenville.

If we are to prevent the overrunning of our history, if a person finds it too long to have Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry and East Grenville in the electoral district's name, it would seem to me preferable to have left it Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, East Grenville for the documents. Some people say that is going to take up too much space on the letterhead. God knows, as members of the Legislature we put all the stuff we can pack into that top inch and a half or two inches anyway. What is the difference? What really is the difference?

I guess it is difficult to put all those typesettings on the documents, but could we not have left this as Stormont, Dundas, Glengarry, East Grenville for the purposes --

Mr Villeneuve: I tried, and the Liberals said no.

Mr Elston: No, I understand what the problem is; I am merely expressing what I believe to have been the right way for the member to have gone. If I had known this was taking place -- I apologize for not having known, but I have never talked to the member, prior to my current position, before on this matter. But as a person who studied history --

Mr Carr: You never talked to him because you were in cabinet.

Mr Elston: No, it is not true. The member for Oakville South indicated that I never talk to him. Certainly, I never did talk to him during my cabinet time; he is a recent arrival. But I used to speak to his predecessor, and I would have, if I had known, been glad to speak to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry about this, because as a person who has studied history I have some sense of the loss that will come when you submerge the name for the purposes of some practicality, and we, for goodness' sake, are submerging so much of our history these days for the purposes of practical problems that we ought to do everything we can to strive to protect the integrity of the names that are great signposts of our past.

I know the member spoke about the fact that we said it was too long. I presume that probably where that came from was the fact that people who had to deal with this in typesetting said it was too long, as opposed to the Liberal government, which the member is trying to make a little political hay from.

Some hon members: Shame, shame.

Mr Elston: That is what he said it for. Listen, the guy is a very good politician. He knows how to campaign. In fact, I remember campaigning in 1984 in Stormont, Dundas --

Mr Villeneuve: In 1983.

Mr Elston: Sorry, 1983. Maybe I was late; maybe that is why they lost. I remember campaigning there in December 1983 in the middle of a snowstorm, and it was obvious that the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry was a very capable and very fine individual. I was campaigning in Winchester on the back streets, talking to the local citizenry, and started out in full sunshine, a rather cool day -- warm at the door; cool from a climatic point of view -- but by the time I went no more than about an hour on the streets there, the member-in-waiting had arranged to have it snowing so hard we could hardly see from the sidewalk to the door handles. That probably explains why we lost Winchester in that by-election, in which the member with the name Villeneuve replaced the former member, whose name was also Villeneuve. I am sure that was merely a coincidence.

I should say, by the way, speaking to this, that the proud history of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry had attached to it the name of another Villeneuve, who was there for a considerable length of time. Osie Villeneuve, as some of you know, really spent a lot of time there. Actually, he was provincially elected, then went in elected federally, and then came back and served provincially, and in fact sat where the member for Wentworth North now sits. That seat was permanently, almost, assigned to Osie Villeneuve. He served his constituents well and knew the constituency remarkably well. There was little question whatsoever about the outcome of any election, even if he were 10 years down the road from it, because that particular Mr Villeneuve was well respected.

I might say in a moment of charity -- or is it generosity? -- that SDG is equally well served by a gentleman who is also well known. I know it was merely a coincidence that they found another Villeneuve to replace Osie.

While I am speaking to this and the historical nature of the changes to come by the change in name, I would just like to say to the family of the late Osie Villeneuve that, although we like the current member, we likewise miss the sage advice we used to receive from a man who had a bearing which was semi regal, I guess, in nature, and who was a good friend to a lot of new members around this House, just to deviate for a moment to that point.

1130

I do really want to say that I understand the reason this is happening, but I regret that historically those words will disappear. I know that what the gentleman from the New Democratic Party was trying to indicate were some of the characteristics of the people from that part of eastern Ontario, in a way which I think underscores the characteristics that go with a lot of the people who reside in all parts of the province. But the mere use of that as an example, I think, leads me to believe that when we are not here as a generation, and when we are not able to tell others in the debates that the electoral district of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is represented by someone -- in this case Mr Villeneuve, who will be there for a long time probably, at least until I show up on time for the next by-election, or whatever, who knows -- but we will no longer be able to say what SDG means.

He will, when he is making his speeches. The people at the electoral commission will refer to it as SDG. Those people will know it as S-D-G -- and East Grenville, just to finish it off. The people who do all of the administrative activities and the people who write all the books about S-D-G & East Grenville will probably not refer back the way we could with our memories to the days when it was Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry.

Our signposts in history are so necessary to ensure the preservation and protection of our culture, of our heritage, of the understanding of the evolution of our social thought and thinking. These electoral district names are only really a determination to preserve the history in a way in which people who have no connection from a chronological point of view with the area can understand the existence of that part of our history in a real fashion.

There is another of our colleagues who wants to speak on this. I just wanted to put that on the record. I know the local member will keep it high in priority when he is speaking. There is a member to come after him, as there will be a member to come after each of us, and there is a member to come after that and after that. I think the first step to preservation, as is well known in other places, is to ensure that we do not drop any of the signposts of our past. I just want to warn us about that. It happens so quickly.

Mr Carr: I will very briefly speak in support of my colleague. I have a similar situation in my riding; a portion of my riding falls into the Burlington area. It is ironic how important the name of the riding is, because when I was out canvassing in the last election campaign there actually were some people who said they do not vote because of the name change, that they do not feel they are a part of Oakville South, having lived in Burlington. Of course that is done because of the redistribution and trying to keep the numbers fair, but the people think of themselves as part of the Burlington community, not the Oakville community. It has been a very difficult task to get them and incorporate them into feeling a part of my riding, so I can appreciate how important this matter of a name change, which we sometimes think may not seem too important, is to the very people who are out there.

I would like to support my colleague in his move to change that as a result of that, because I have seen first hand in my riding some people who are saying to me: "I don't feel a part of it. I feel left out." Even when newsletters or householders go out and you have to put Oakville South on it, we still get calls saying, "What about the Burlington portion?" I have taken now to putting on the letters I send out "Oakville South," and also saying to the people "Burlington southeast," because it is a very difficult situation for those people who do not feel a part of the riding.

My colleague who represents the Burlington portion in Burlington South has done everything he could to try and work with us, because what happens is that it is so close that a lot of people, because they live in Burlington, will call his office rather than calling my office because they feel a little left out. There are a lot of things we need to do, and I am in the process now of trying to figure out a name change. We are fortunate. The previous speaker talked about the long tradition. Our tradition has not been as long, but it is very difficult, because there are some people who want to keep the name and it is very difficult to come up with some type of name that will keep everybody happy.

I think even my predecessor, who was mentioned earlier, had sent out in one of his newsletters a flyer to try and change the name and asked for comments; so many came back that it made it very difficult. So when we are looking at making a name change like this, it is a very difficult process. I know the member in doing this took a great deal of time to get a lot of input. I would just like to say that I can sympathize with him and will be giving him my support.

Mr Klopp: I rise at this time to say that I fully support the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry in his name change. I surely realize that he has taken the time and the effort to know that this change is something that is needed. I am sure he has taken the time back in his riding to talk to everyone and to make sure they understand it.

He also took the time to comment on the issue of rural distribution. I am glad he took the time to talk about that because it is a concern I also have. I would like to say that if we can work together in making sure that rural areas are represented -- I am sure we all realize that rep by population was a good thing that was started many years ago, because if we look back in our history it was abused by people who had, maybe, very distinct political ideas. I am sure none of us wants to get away from that, but at the same time, times change. In an open consultation of all people in this room and the people who are concerned, I am sure we can come up with some changes which still allow the representation of democracy, because that is really what we are talking about. I say very openly to all members who are concerned about that that I am too, and if we can get together and work at that over the next four and a half years, or sooner if we can, and come up with some ideas, I look forward to that. I hope today that this bill passes as soon as possible.

Mr Beer: It is a pleasure to join in this debate. I think it raises one of the questions for a number of us, in terms of how we go about ensuring that what our riding is called relates back to the community we live in. I want to refer to the comments made by the member for Oakville South because I think particularly in areas of what we call fast growth and the way boundaries change, the names of those ridings, which are often geographical -- north, south, east, west -- can then cause problems in terms of people feeling included or excluded.

I have always been in favour, where possible, of trying to use historical references for the names of ridings. For example, my riding is York North. There is a federal riding of York North, and there is a municipality called North York, and I cannot begin to tell members the number of letters I get addressed to Mel Lastman, the mayor of North York. I do not mind getting those letters, but it seems to me that there is some confusion here. As members will know, William Lyon Mackenzie, the night after the great revolt, actually spent the night in my riding, and I have always thought that perhaps the best name would be York Mackenzie. Perhaps some day that is something I would want to bring forward.

One of the things when we are changing riding names, though, is that it is important that somehow people in that riding are able to participate in the discussion. In the normal course of events if we were going through changes in names, there is a consultative process. I think it is important when we are concerned about people being involved that we keep that in mind so changes really do reflect the will of the people in that particular riding. But the historical aspect of it is important and one we should keep in mind.

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate as well, in support of my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry -- soon to be S-D-G & East Grenville, for a whole bunch which I will try to elaborate upon.

I want to make a few brief comments at the outset, though, with respect to some of the things that were mentioned by the member for Bruce, a good friend and someone for whom I have a great deal of respect, talking about Osie Villeneuve. Both he and I had the opportunity to serve with the late Osie Villeneuve for a couple of years before his passing. He was a fine gentleman and certainly helped the newcomers to the Legislature in that period of time. His wife, Alma, is a grand lady and is still living and going very strong in the community of Maxville.

1140

But I want to take this opportunity -- we do not have too many opportunities like this -- to say a few things about his successor, the current member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry. I have had the opportunity of serving with him for something going on eight years now, and we feel fortunate to have him within the Progressive Conservative caucus; he is frequently a voice of reason. He has, particularly with the boundary changes in the last election, a pretty good cross-section of Ontarians resident within his riding: a lot of Franco-Ontarians, a lot of Anglo-Ontarians, a lot of United Empire Loyalists, a lot of people who feel very strongly about this province and its roots in this country.

We have frequently had discussions about constitutional matters, if you will, questions of language, and he has been a force within our caucus who has always provided us with that stability, as I said earlier, the voice of reason, a very persuasive voice indeed, someone who has been of immense assistance to all of us who have served since he joined our caucus in 1983. He has served not only the people of his riding extremely well but I believe, because of his contributions in this Legislature and to our party, he has served the people of Ontario extremely well. I very much appreciate having an opportunity to say that about a colleague and someone I consider a good friend.

The name of my riding, Mr Speaker, as you are well aware, is Leeds-Grenville. The redistribution created some problems with respect to the division of Grenville, as the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has spoken to. It has created problems for my office as well, because traditionally the federal member is Leeds-Grenville and the provincial member is Leeds-Grenville; so we are suffering from this failure to clearly distinguish the responsibilities between the member and myself, and we have had some difficulties in the past in respect to that.

I think the mover of the resolution was quite correct when he talked about the redistribution process. The electoral boundaries commission of the time made, I think, a serious error, but again they were basing it all on representation by population and I think that is a mistake; we have to look at that in the next redistribution, especially in respect to rural ridings because we cannot simply base it on representation by population. We are continually losing rural ridings and rural representation in this Legislature. We have to come up with some kind of formula.

I have frequently talked about the difference between urban and essentially rural ridings in workload. I represent a riding that is significantly rural, and I know that as a member in such a riding you tend to have a much higher profile, you tend to be called upon to attend social events much more so than a member, for example, in downtown Toronto. A member in downtown Toronto can cover his riding in a very speedy period of time, whereas those of us representing rural ridings have significant miles to travel to try and cover our riding, to try to get to functions. We have much more social demands placed upon us.

I think those kinds of things have not been recognized by electoral boundaries commissions in the past, and we as legislators have to ensure that those kinds of things are taken into consideration when they are drawing these boundaries in the future.

I agree with the member for Bruce when he said the historical signposts have to be recognized as well. Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, names that are part of history, have to be recognized much more than they have been in the past.

I do not want to get partisan; I tend to do these things. The member for Bruce is a very sincere gentleman, no question about it, but when he talks about preserving signposts of history, the Liberal Party federally has probably been more responsible for doing away with signposts of history in this country than any other political party. Just look at what they have done with respect to the monarchy, the flag, the national anthem, the system of measurement in this country. When you talk about signposts of history, Liberals, federally at least, have a lot to answer for.

There are a couple of other things that have created problems for me in my riding and, I am sure, for the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry as well, in terms of complaints from constituents. The member for Oakville South mentioned this too, the concerns he has from people who feel they are left out; they are left out because there is no recognition in terms of the riding name to recognize those individuals.

I recall last year issuing a telephone directory in one of my mailings to constituents and on the cover, of course, it says, "The member for Leeds-Grenville" --

Mr Bradley: Was your picture.on it?

Mr Runciman: Several pictures, as a matter of fact. I did not include the member's. My apologies.

We had a number of people calling from east Grenville who were concerned that their municipalities were left out of this telephone directory and they were not receiving these like other residents of Grenville; they were quite upset by it. Of course, we had to go through the explanations that I represent only a certain portion of Grenville; my colleague represents the other part of that riding. Those people indeed have legitimate concerns and complaints in respect to feeling left out, although they are not left out in terms of representation; I want to tell members that. They could not have a stronger voice in this Legislature than the current representative from that area.

I do not have a great deal more to add to this debate, simply to say that I support my colleague and urge speedy passage of this bill.

Mr Perruzza: I will not go on at length, but it surprises me when time periods for the debates are negotiated in this House, that on some substantive, real issue, such as the one we ended a little time ago on the member for York North's resolution, there are very serious time constraints; however, when we deal with a matter such as this, it seems members can go on at exorbitant lengths.

Speaking to this particular name change, I am not going to support the change in name. I can sympathize with the member and what he is attempting to do, but I feel that we owe a little something of ourselves to history and to the preservation of history, and I think that if electoral boundaries change, the new area could well be incorporated in the name.

I am reluctant to move to computerized electoral districts because if that is the case then perhaps what we should be looking at is numbers. Let's number the ridings 1 to 132. Let's forget the history behind the ridings and go that route. It is very short, it fits on an election sign very succinctly in a corner on the bottom and so on, and you do not have to get into any elaborate concepts.

The member can refer to the riding however he chooses to in his letterhead, on his election signs and so on. I think the Conservative member who just finished speaking alluded to the electioneering behind the names of our ridings and so on, the travelling between distances. He talked about having to move from one community to the next, that it takes some time to do that, in an election year. I think there is something a little more important in the names of the ridings we represent than simply distances between towns. I subscribe to the view that our history and culture and heritage need to be preserved, and I think we would do well to further that process.

I cannot think of a flowerier name or a district I would like to represent simply because the name strikes a chord in me as symbolic of our past and of our history than Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings. That is history to me. If the member for that riding, who is a member of this caucus, were to come forward with an abbreviated version of that name change, I would be reluctant to support him as well, because I think it is important that history in this Legislature is preserved and is preserved in Ontario.

1150

I think the member who has introduced this resolution would do well to reconsider that. If he wants to do it for his own purposes, for letterheads, for election signs and so on, I think he can do that quite well. But I think in the history books, in Hansard, in the election commission's reference to these names, I think we would do well to preserve that heritage and I am not going to support the member today. I hope to be able to support the member on a future resolution of his.

Mr Cousens: I am very pleased to support the Bill 31, before us today. I happen to believe, in contradiction to the views that have just been expressed by our honourable member, there is a real sense of identification with the name of the riding. In our own area, federally the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville was not included in the federal riding and our federal member, Mr Attewell, was able to take a private member's bill through the federal House to have the riding changed to Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville. It is more of a mouthful, but more than anything there is more sense of the people of that area being represented by that member.

When you look at the size of the member's riding, to exclude some 14,000 people from the riding name by virtue of not having them included in it says to them they are not important. The fact that this member is saying he believes East Grenville is important, and the people of Kemptville, Cardinal, the townships of Edwardsburgh, South Gower and Oxford-on-Rideau -- these 14,000 people at least will know someone has taken the time, effort and energy and withstood the barrage of criticism from the honourable NDP to be able to come forward and strongly present --

Mr Runciman: One member.

Mr Cousens: Is it only one member? I hope so. That is good. Look, it is almost feeding time. We will have to look after these guys.

I can just say that I am strongly supportive of this kind of effort of a member to represent his community. People are left out of the political process.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: You have to control this House, Mr Speaker. It is just terrible. I was not even trying to get them upset.

An hon member: You don't have to.

Mr Cousens: I do not have to try, I know. I just have to come along and do what I do.

The problem we have today is that people feel disfranchised by the political system in Canada. I sense there is a growing feeling that people feel once they have elected someone, he is going to do what he wants anyway. They will make promises and then they will say, "That was then, this is now." The members over there are all very familiar with the way in which they got elected and then what they do afterwards.

I am aware of that and so is this House; but so are the people at large. That is why 65% vote in provincial elections, and that is why we end up having people at municipal election time -- this 12 November, when we have municipal election day, how many people really think the people they vote for are going to do what they said they would do? I think we have to have a way of getting people involved in the political process so they feel they are part of it. In fact, this is one way in which one member is able to go back to his municipality and show them he is trying his best to represent all people.

One of the things the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has said to me in the past is that he does not want to think of himself as being of one partisan political party when he is serving his riding. When he is out there serving the people of his communities, he is out there to serve people of any political stripe, whoever comes to him, to his riding office or seeks his assistance. He is there to serve all the people. That is something true of all the members of this House: We are there to serve all the people right across our own ridings.

What we are seeing here through this member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is that by including East Grenville he is making a strong statement to those people who otherwise might feel disfranchised. They will then know this member is their member and someone who seeks to serve them.

I do not think we can ever stop working at representing the people in our ridings. We have a noble responsibility as servants of the people --

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I think there is a lesson in it, though, because if we continue through our newsletters keeping in touch to make sure the people know who we are, know we are there to respond to their needs, then in that case they have a sense of saying, "Well, at least someone is trying." I think there is something the member and I and all of us can do to achieve that end. The fact that this is just one small gesture towards that to me shows representative government at its best. I hope there is only one lonely New Democrat who is going to vote against this and all the rest of us will strongly support this bill that is before us today.

Mrs Haslam: I was not going to speak on this, but I have decided that perhaps I should join the fray. I thought seriously of voting against the honourable member's petition, mainly because I have finally learned half of the ridings for everybody when I sit in the chair, and that is no mean feat, as anyone sitting in the chair knows. For instance, there is a Mississauga North, a Mississauga South, a Mississauga West, a Mississauga East. There are some good members in all of those ridings. They do not sit in alphabetical order, some are here and some are there, and in the matter of Scarborough, besides there being a Scarborough North, a Scarborough South, a Scarborough Centre, a Scarborough East, there is also a Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Originally I was going to say, "Please, I've finally learned that the member comes from Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and now you're going to change it." However, I would say that due to the wonderful debate we have engaged in at this time and due to the wonderful arguments put forth by the member's honourable colleagues, I will support his motion at this time, but he should not do it again, please, because I am finally going to learn that it is -- is it S-G-D or S-D-G? S-D-G. I am finally going to have this down pat: S-D-G & East Glengarry.

Mr Villeneuve: East Grenville.

Mrs Haslam: See what I mean? East Grenville. If the member changes it again, I am going to make a few suggestions as to what he can change it to. I will support the member at this time.

Mr Mills: It is a few minutes before we go out to have our lunch, so I will take advantage of these few minutes to say a few words about what my friend the honourable member for those initials and Dundas --

Mrs Haslam: Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry.

Mr Mills: As one gets older, one tends to resist change even greater, and I for one am in that mould. My wife constantly tells me: "You know, you've got to change with the times. You've got to get with it." At least I have got some posh-looking ties now that she has pressed on me to have, and I am really trying to be upbeat, but my background is that I am very much a traditionalist and I watched with some dismay the dismantling of some of the things we have come to know and treasure in Canada. I am not going to talk about that because I do not want to cause any hard feelings among anybody but, being a traditionalist, I must say that I am awfully sorry to see traditions go, and it does not really matter how minor they are. I had the pleasure of being in the honourable member's riding when I was first elected to this House, and I must say I enjoyed his generosity towards me and that of the constituents he represents. They did not know me and I did not know them, and I appreciate the kindness which the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry extended to me at that time.

1200

Mr Villeneuve: I want to take this opportunity to thank all of the members who participated: Scarborough Centre, Bruce, Leeds-Grenville, Oakville South, Huron, Downsview, Markham, Perth and Durham East. I guess there was only one dissenting voice. I certainly appreciate the member for Bruce on the signposts of history, but SD&G has been known as SD&G for a long time, and as members probably have noticed today, I am very proud of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry and I say it without difficulty, but I have noticed today with people participating in the debate that they stumbled quite a bit in trying to say it.

In the last election, would you believe, Mr Speaker, the Liberal candidate accused me of not recognizing the people of east Grenville? I find it somewhat strange that the member for Bruce got up and said some great things, and that is fine, but I certainly want to recognize everyone in the riding. The signpost of history for S-D-G has been Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry synonymous with S-D-G. In the newspapers, the abbreviation is used.

Last Saturday, we had the warden's bonspiel in my home town of Maxville; 30 rinks participated. Ron MacDonell, our present warden, the 142nd warden of S-D-G, sponsored this in conjunction with George Currier, the reeve of Maxville and the past warden.

We are steeped in history. The signpost of history S-D-G remains, and certainly I was pleased that the member for Bruce along with the member for Leeds-Grenville mentioned my predecessor, the late Osie Villeneuve. He left a tremendously large pair of boots to fill and I am still trying.

DISABILITY INSURANCE

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Beer has moved private members' resolution 5.

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Vote deferred.

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Villeneuve has moved second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

DISABILITY INSURANCE

The House divided on Mr Beer's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes-18

Beer, Bradley, Brown, Daigeler, Elston, Fawcett, Mahoney, Mancini, McClelland, Offer, Perruzza, Poirier, Poole, Silipo, Sola, Sterling, Sullivan, White.

Nays-34

Abel, Bisson, Carr, Cooper, Cousens, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Jordan, Klopp, MacKinnon, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, O'Connor, Owens, Runciman, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Ward, M., Waters, Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1213.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Bradley: I rise to draw to the attention of members of the House the tragic event that occurred 15 kilometres south of Hamilton, where two innocent victims of crime, Donna and Arnold Edwards, were found dead last Thursday in their rural home.

Members may be aware that the family of the victims held a news conference at which they issued an understandably emotional plea to elected legislators to close the loopholes that allow dangerous individuals to victimize innocent and vulnerable people in our society.

Much has been said and done about the rights of accused people and convicted criminals, but precious little attention has been paid to the victims of crime. Clearly, the Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Correctional Services, along with their federal counterparts, must develop and implement new regulations, policies and laws designed to confine dangerous people to a secure institution, rather than routinely releasing such individuals on bail, where they commit further crimes while out of custody.

Donna and Arnold Edwards refused to keep a weapon in their home because they believed the judicial system would protect them. Instead, it failed them. Those of us who are elected representatives must act now to ensure that this tragic and avoidable crime is not repeated. For the Edwards family, it is too late. For others, it is not.

JEFF LANGDON

Mr Jordan: Today, I rise to recognize the tremendous accomplishments of a young man from Lanark-Renfrew. Jeff Langdon began skating at five years of age to prepare himself for hockey. He decided, however, he did not wish to play hockey, but to skate, and in 1984, at the age of nine, he won the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club championship and his first gold medal.

This year, at age 15, Jeff was the novice men's Canadian champion in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 8 February 1991, and the Canada Games gold medal winner at Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, 27 February 1991.

Jeff is proud of his affiliation with the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club, and continues to represent the club and the town of Smiths Falls at all competitions, although he has been training at the Mariposa School of Skating in Barrie. Jeff is currently on the junior national team, and is looking forward to an international assignment. His ultimate dream is to represent Canada in the Olympic Games.

Jeff is a dedicated grade 10 student, and had an average of 80%. He will be 16 in August 1991.

On 31 March it will be my pleasure, on behalf of the Premier, to present Jeff a national achievement award during the Rideau Lakes Figure Skating Club's annual carnival. The people of Lanark-Renfrew are proud of Jeff

Langdon and his family, parents Al and Karen and sister Christi.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mrs MacKinnon: In Lambton, 1991 is a reason to celebrate. Many may say, "What is there to celebrate?" One celebration is 17 through 21 September, when the International Plowing Match comes to Lambton county. This prestigious affair is the largest farm and machinery exposition in the world. The highlight of the week is the plowing competition, which goes on every day of the plowing match.

You will see all ages of women and men participate in the plowing competition, where modern farm machinery will be used along with horse and plow as done in the years past. And oh, yes, MPPs will also plow. There will also be hearth, home and hobby programs along with food tents, a fashion show, arts and crafts, quilts and souvenirs.

Visitors and participants from all over North America will be in the township of Enniskillen in the county of Lambton to celebrate this international event located 45 minutes from London and 15 minutes from Sarnia, where accommodation is plentiful, affordable and comfortable. It promises to be a spectacular show for everyone to enjoy, and an opportunity for many to visit the beautiful and interesting attractions in Lambton area. This is a reason to celebrate.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

Mr Offer: I would like to draw the attention of the House to a punishment this government is inflicting upon 15,000 injured workers across the province this holiday weekend. As the Minister of Labour prepares to enjoy the four-day Easter holiday, I understand 15,000 recipients of pension cheques from the Workers' Compensation Board got cheques dated tomorrow, 29 March, Good Friday.

As members will be aware, banks and financial institutions are closed tomorrow, and indeed many until next Monday. This means that 15,000 injured workers will have no money over this four-day period, and indeed for many families in Ontario this will result in a severe hardship. This can only be referred to as negligence of the highest order, and yet the government, the Minister of Labour and the Premier would rather mess around at the top of the Workers' Compensation Board by handing out patronage appointments to prior NDP members than clean up the chaos at the bottom which their clumsy meddling has encouraged.

This government had better examine the values it holds and whether those values are being demonstrated in the shoddy, inept and uncaring treatment the Workers' Compensation Board has offered the thousands of injured workers across the province since it took power. The Minister of Labour must immediately find a way to ensure that this problem is rectified for the 15,000 families this weekend.

SIMCOE COUNTY CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr J. Wilson: My statement is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last year, a ministry audit described the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society to be a model agency for the delivery of child welfare services. Today, the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society is in deep trouble. While I am grateful for the ministry's decision to cash flow the society until the end of this summer, this is a short-term Band-Aid applied to a long-term, systemic problem.

The Simcoe County Children's Aid Society is losing the battle to balance government's demands for service with the shortfall in provincial funding.

After several discussions with the executive and officials of the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society, I realize how critical their needs are. As a result, I wrote to the minister to address Simcoe county's concerns, and I am pleased that she has at least seen fit to acknowledge these needs in the short term.

However, the day I spent with a society field worker left a profound impact on me. I know at first hand the real need for the services provided by children's aid societies, especially in Simcoe county, and I also realize their problems cannot be wished away with quick fixes.

With the continued increase in unemployment in the area, coupled with the area's dramatic growth in recent years, I am deeply concerned about the future of this children's aid society.

I am calling on the minister to show leadership and respond to the very real and serious problems that face the Simcoe County Children's Aid Society, and I am requesting that she do so immediately.

EASTER ACTIVITIES

Mr Hansen: I would like to inform the House of some of the events taking place in my riding of Lincoln this coming weekend.

The Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch and the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority are hosting a hawk-watching open house on Good Friday, 29 March, with a rain date of Saturday, 30 March, at the Beamer Memorial Conservation Area on the Niagara Escarpment just above Grimsby.

The open house will run from 10 am to 3 pm and will feature a demonstration of hawks in the hand from the Ontario Veterinary College's wild bird clinic. There will also be a hawk and owl display, weather permitting. There will be a good migration of hawks on their way north flying over Beamer, and there will be experts on hand to identify the birds.

Every spring from March till May thousands of red-tailed, rough-legged, broad-winged and many other hawks fly past Beamer Memorial Conservation Area on their way to the nesting grounds. The Niagara Peninsula Hawkwatch counts the birds in each flight, each year, to help assess the health of the Ontario hawk population. The Hawkwatch is a new organization comprised of people who enjoy this laid-back but fascinating hobby. Everyone is welcome to attend the hawk-watching open house. Dress warmly, bring a lawn chair and learn about some of the most interesting birds that fly through the area.

Also, just east of Grimsby on Sunday 31 March visit the Maple Syrup Days at Vineland Quarries sugar bush at Vineland for demonstrations of maple syrup making from the early Indian ways to the present-day technology.

1340

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr Phillips: I would like to bring to the attention of the government what I believe to be a clever, but I think vicious attempt to undermine the credibility of one of its cabinet ministers.

Most members will recall that when I was the Minister of Labour, Bill 208 on occupational health and safety was passed by the Legislature. The Minister of Labour, then the NDP Labour critic, the member for Hamilton East, could not contain his anger about the bill.

He said about Premier Peterson, when he was talking about Bill 208, and this is him referring to Premier Peterson, "He was so doggone deep in the pockets of business and the contractors in this province that if he were human he would have choked to death on the lint in their pockets."

He even attacked me, as the Minister of Labour. He said I was the champion of business and a chump for labour. He said I was a pretty pathetic example of a Minister of Labour in Ontario. He obviously felt bad about the bill.

Now the part where it seems somebody is deliberately trying to undermine his credibility and indeed to make him appear hypocritical: In the 19 March edition of the business publication the Financial Post is a story that is headlined "Labour Minister Praises New Workplace Legislation." "This legislation represents some of the most progressive health and safety regulations in North America...We believe its provisions...will prove an effective tool in achieving safer, healthier and more productive workplaces."

I hope the government can find who put this in. Obviously the minister could not have done it. I hope they are able to restore his credibility by finding who would do something like this.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr B. Murdoch: The people in Meaford and in the township of St Vincent are fast losing patience with the Minister of the Environment. As she well knows, the present dump site in the area is almost full and she will not let them open a new one.

On 5 December I raised the issue in the House and advised the minister, in case her staff had neglected to do so, that we are facing a crisis. On 31 January I wrote the minister reminding her of the situation and asked that she meet with local municipal officials to try to find a solution. I have received no answer.

On 21 February John Lowe, chairman of the joint landfill committee, wrote to the minister again, enclosing a copy of my letter, begging her to sit down with them and discuss the problem. The minister has ignored them.

Does the minister simply not care that because of her inaction garbage will be piling up in the streets? Does the minister feel that she is too far removed from the people of this province to worry about their problems? Does the minister plan anything? Why will she not even respond to our letters and grant us the courtesy of the meeting?

INTENDED APPOINTMENTS

Mr Perruzza: I rise today to congratulate an outstanding individual from our Downsview community who is the intended appointee as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board. Mr Odoardo Di Santo served as a member for Downsview in this Legislature from 1975 to 1985. In that period he acquired remarkable expertise in defending and fighting for injured workers and guiding them through the Workers' Compensation Board process.

This commitment was recognized in 1985 by all parties when Mr Di Santo was appointed as director of the office of worker adviser, where he has served to date. He has done a remarkable job in assisting injured workers and ensuring that they receive fair compensation for their injuries. His in-depth understanding of the board and his understanding of the plight of injured workers and their families will serve him well as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board. The challenges facing Mr Di Santo are many, but through his hard work and dedication he has earned the respect of our communities.

Further, I wish to congratulate Father Massey Lombardi on his intended appointment as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. A resident of Downsview, I have had the pleasure of working with Father Lombardi on the North York mayor's committee on race and ethnic relations from 1986 to 1988. He brings extensive knowledge, experience and a balanced perspective to his new responsibilities.

I am confident our communities will be well served by the appointment of Odoardo Di Santo as chair of the Workers' Compensation Board and Father Massey Lombardi as a member of the police services board.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY / L'INDUSTRIE CINÉMATOGRAPHIQUE ONTARIENNE

Hon Mr Marchese: Today I am pleased to be able to announce a package of initiatives to support the film industry in Ontario. The Ontario film investment program, or OFIP, has been running for two years now and is set to expire 31 March, just a few days away. We have decided to extend the program for another two years because it has been so successful in bringing needed investment to this province and in creating jobs.

Since April 1989, OFIP has supported 63 Ontario-based film or television productions. Together, these 63 productions have provided 1,775 full-year jobs and resulted in more than $200 million in total spending in this province alone, and we know the spinoff effect of this spending creates other jobs and ripples through the economy.

Depuis le mois d'avril 1989, le programme d'investissement dans l'industrie cinématographique ontarienne a contribué à 63 productions cinématographiques ou télévisées en Ontario. Ces productions ont permis de créer 1775 emplois annuels et ont entraîné des dépenses de plus de 200 millions de dollars dans notre province. Nous savons que les effets indirects de ces activités donnent lieu à la création d'autres emplois et ont des répercussions à travers l'ensemble de l'économie.

This is an industry that employs 35,000 people and has a combined direct and indirect economic impact of more than $5 billion in Ontario alone. That ranks it among the province's 20 largest industries. This is truly culture at work.

There is a strong industrial, craft and post-production base in Ontario; in other words, a lot of talented people whom we want to see working here. Through the Ontario Film Development Corp, we will spend over $31 million during the next two years to foster investment in the film and television industry. The bulk of that spending, some $28.7 million, will go to the OFIP program, which allows Ontario investors to recoup 20% of their investment in an eligible Canadian-content television production and up to 25% of their costs for comparable feature film productions.

La plus grande partie de ce montant, soit 28,7 millions de dollars, sera consacrée au PIICO, qui permet aux investisseurs de récupérer 20% de leur investissement dans une production télévisée canadienne et jusqu'à 25% dans une production cinématographique canadienne.

I have talked about the jobs that are created in the film industry and the investment that is attracted here through incentive funding, but I want to acknowledge the intrinsic value of this very powerful and influential cultural sector. I want to make it clear that we are not simply finding one more way to create jobs and stimulate the economy. What we are doing with funding initiatives that I am announcing today is recognizing the importance of investing in our cultural resources.

I believe we have an obligation to protect the cultural integrity of this province, with its unique blend of many cultures, in the face of a culturally overwhelming American neighbour and in the absence of any new federal initiatives to protect the film and television sector.

1350

In addition to the major OFIP program, the OFDC will also receive funding for another very successful initiative designed to assist arts and multicultural production and development. This $1-million yearly budget will go to support film and television productions of performing arts and multicultural groups. Today I am announcing a grant of $2 million for this initiative, $1 million for each of the next two years.

Since 1989, the $2 million dedicated to the arts and multicultural programming has brought in more than four times that amount in total investment and has made it possible to film live performances of theatre, dance, music, opera and multicultural events and subjects. This extends the life of cultural events beyond their immediate audience and preserves it for viewing in other places and at other times.

The province will also direct $165,000 to repertory cinemas to help promote and advertise recent Canadian productions; this initiative will be known as the film exhibition pilot project and will include a study to determine the feasibility of its extension to smaller communities across Ontario. We have worked closely with the rep houses to design this pilot project. It is a precedent-setting, one-year case and it is going to increase awareness of and therefore attendance at Canadian films. They win awards, they are seen around the world, but they are massively overshadowed by the foreign films that continue to dominate our screens. More than 97% of theatrical screen time is devoted to non-Canadian feature films. There is no doubt that we can make wonderful films in this country; now let's make sure that Ontarians have an opportunity to view this cinematic wealth.

Finally, we will contribute $150,000 towards the cost of developing a strategic plan for the film and video industry. This plan will be developed by this government, in collaboration with industry representatives and will address the many obstacles to film and television production, distribution and exhibition in this province. It will allow us to move beyond short-term solutions. We know what the problems are; let's use some creative and strategic thinking to solve them and guarantee greater cultural strength to future generations.

In total, the programs I have described amount to more than $31 million, but let us keep in mind the much larger impact of investments like this. It will bring in many times that amount of investment dollars to a sector that provides thousands of jobs and thousands of hours of cultural programming. It sends a clear message to producers, directors, writers, actors, designers and film crew members that we in government know their work is important and we value it and support it.

Few other sectors tap into the priorities of this government to this extent. Whether we are talking about diversified economic development, cultural sovereignty, intercultural understanding or environmental awareness, since film and television production is an environmentally low-impact industry, we can point to the film and television with pride.

It is a pleasure to announce these programs and to move ahead with another two years of exciting and innovative film and television production in Ontario.

NATIVE ISSUES

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to inform members of this House that this government will begin the process of resolving a land claim that has been outstanding for more than 200 years. The process begins with a statement of intent signed with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. This statement spells out our intent to (1) enter land claim negotiations with the Algonquins of Golden Lake by 15 June 1991 and (2) develop agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake on hunting and fishing for food in the area they claim as their traditional territory.

I want to assure this House that we are pursuing the process of public consultation that will continue to be a feature of our efforts in negotiating the agreements with the Algonquins of Golden Lake. Through these agreements, we will clearly demonstrate the commitment of all sides to the conservation of game, fish and other resources and to the protection of public safety.

As members know, the Algonquins of Golden Lake have filed a substantial land claim to a large part of the Ottawa Valley, including Algonquin Park. The Algonquins first asked to have their rights recognized in the late 18th century, and still nothing has been done. It is in the best interests of the Algonquins of Golden Lake, all of Ontario and indeed all of Canada to settle this land claim rather than wait and have the matters settled by the courts.

I have written to my federal counterpart, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, inviting him to join in these important land claim negotiations. Ontario wants to see a full resolution of this land claim by the Algonquin nation. It is essential that the federal government be involved. Before the negotiations are finished, however, the Algonquin people living in Quebec, who have also made a claim in this area, and the government of Quebec, may also have to be involved.

If the federal government is not prepared to get involved, then Ontario will move ahead and negotiate on a bilateral basis those areas of provincial responsibility.

The statement of intent indicates that we will develop an interim agreement with the Algonquins of Golden Lake regarding the aboriginal right to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use. When finalized, the interim agreement will include subagreements on deer and moose hunting and fishing for food. The subagreements will specify seasons for hunting and fishing, areas for hunting and fishing, levels of harvest, means of access to resources and measures to protect park values, ensure enforcement and protect public safety.

We are negotiating provisions that, among other things, will see hunting activity taking place from late fall to mid-January.

We are consulting with concerned individuals and other groups interested in Algonquin Park about the interim agreement and the subagreements. These groups include the Friends of Algonquin, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, the Algonquin Wildlands League, the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association and the World Wildlife Fund. We will be consulting with other groups as the process continues.

I want to assure the House of my confidence that, through consultations, we can create a harmonious climate that allows the Algonquins to exercise their aboriginal rights and which also allows others to continue to enjoy Algonquin Park as they have in the past.

The Algonquins of Golden Lake have told us there is no moose or deer hunting going on now in or around Algonquin Park. Their season for hunting is over. Agreements on hunting and fishing in the area the Algonquins claim as their traditional territory will be in place before the fall hunting season.

The matters I am outlining today involving the Algonquins will help focus future consultations. We will not sign final agreements on these matters until consultation is completed with the Algonquins and with interested groups.

On a related matter concerning aboriginal people, I want to bring to the attention of the members a draft interim enforcement policy being developed on aboriginal rights to hunt and fish. We have begun a process of public consultation on developing an interim policy that will be a general enforcement policy covering other aboriginal peoples hunting and fishing in the province. We have been discussing this draft policy with first nations and a number of concerned groups.

The intent of the draft interim enforcement policy is to clarify current government practice regarding aboriginal rights to hunt and fish for food for personal and community use. We need to do this in order to respond to recent Supreme Court decisions.

We will be seeking to minimize the number of instances where native people will be charged under such acts as the Game and Fish Act, the Fisheries Act and the Migratory Birds Convention Act and their regulations. Again, this direction is part of our commitment to negotiate self-government for aboriginal communities. That commitment would be meaningless without access to natural resources such as game and fish.

The foundation of any policy that evolves from consultation on the draft enforcement document is the conservation of game and fish, sound natural resource management and the protection of public safety. The Supreme Court has indicated that governments have a responsibility to enforce regulations in these areas, and we will meet our responsibilities.

When it is in place, the interim enforcement policy will allow us time for public consultation on developing co-management agreements on resources as part of the self-government negotiations.

The measures I have outlined are the core of our commitment to negotiate self-government arrangements with first nations. I trust that I can count on the support of all members of this House as we pursue our commitments to negotiate with the first nations. I hope to be able to further inform members on these matters in the near future.

1400

RESPONSES

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mr Henderson: I would like to begin by thanking the guest speaker for his kind words on this second appearance in one week before this auspicious assembly. You just never know in this business when you are going to draw a little bit of praise and we are very happy to accept that whenever it comes our way.

The minister tells us that the Ontario film investment program has been running for two years now, which indeed it has, and he is going to extend our program for another two years, "because it has been so successful in bringing needed investment to this province and in creating jobs."

"Since April 1989," he goes on to say, "OFIP has supported 63 Ontario-based film or television productions...provided 1,775 full-year jobs and resulted in more than $200 million in total spending in this province alone. And we know," he says, "that the spinoff effect of this spending creates other jobs and ripple effects throughout the economy."

I thank the minister. We appreciate that.

Beyond that, this announcement is rather set to a downhill course. Earlier in the week I commented that the minister had given us next to nothing too late. Well, he has moved up a notch. This is very little, very late.

He says that he "will spend over $31 million over the next two years to foster investment in the film and television industry." I am a little confused, because the press announcement today pledges $28.7 million over the next two years. Not only is that not keeping pace with inflation, but it is not keeping pace with what the previous government was spending on a year-by-year basis.

How does it compare with what Quebec is doing? We have the impression that Quebec is being rather more generous, with all that implies, for the movement and mobility of this very important cultural sector.

The minister goes on to say that he wants "to acknowledge the intrinsic value of this very powerful and influential cultural sector," the film industry, and of course he is quite right. He is announcing today the importance of investing in our cultural resources, and of course he is quite right. But seven months into government is very late to recognize that investing in our cultural resources in Ontario is very important. Quicker recognition would have made for less uncertainty in the film industry.

Finally, there are some dribs and drabs in this announcement, such as $165,000 to repertory cinemas to help promote and advertise recent Canadian films.

The minister quite rightly says his words of praise for the Canadian film industry. He quite rightly laments that 97% of theatrical screen time in Ontario is devoted to non-Canadian feature films. I would like to know what his expectations are with regard to that 97%. What should it be, 90%, 80%, 96 1/2%, 50%? If we knew his expectations, we could more adequately assess the benefit of what he is doing to redress this problem. How can we measure the benefit of a program which is stated in such nebulous terms? This is not to underestimate the minister's well-chosen words in praising the excellent films that emerge from Ontario's film industry.

There is a little hocus-pocus with arithmetic here. The minister begins by announcing $31 million, goes on to announce a further $2 million, adds a few dribs and drabs to that and comes up with a total of $31 million. I do not quite follow his arithmetic.

There are some well-chosen words here and I would like to support the minister for what he is doing, albeit very little, very late.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr Elston: Speaking about very little, very late, I would just like to say first of all that I do want to say it is interesting and in fact fortunate that something positive has finally been announced of substance. It is good to see that they are making moves to finally deal with the issues in a real way.

But I must bring back to everybody's attention that the statements or answers to questions in this House I think have brought the minister and his staff along to the extent that they used to tell us that they were going to do public consulting but not in the glare of the public eye; they had to do a better job of consultation lest they get more editorials like he has received from Huntsville and other papers asking for his resignation.

I also want to say that we know that it is crucial and critical that the subagreements recognize public safety and conservation as valued efforts. I want him to undertake that the subagreements will in fact comply with the answer he gave in this House not long ago.

ONTARIO FILM INDUSTRY

Mrs Marland: In rising to respond to the statement by the Minister of Culture and Communications today, it takes me back to the summer of 1986 when at that time I had the privilege of sitting on this side of the House with the now Premier. Late in the afternoon of a Wednesday, I think, of that week, the now Premier and I were over here with about three or four other members, at which time the then Treasurer, the member for Brant-Haldimand, stood in the House and decided not to call a very controversial bill which was adding 10% amusement tax to all the non-profit theatres.

I was a neophyte member. I was so floored, because this is what we had been asking for for some time in the interest of culture and entertainment in this province, I remember sitting there with my mouth open. The now Premier turned around to me and he said: "Margaret, stand up and crow a little bit and then sit down. Take all the credit you can." So with the coaching of the now Premier, I would like to stand up and crow a little bit and take for one moment some credit for the announcement by the minister.

I will say simply that we do appreciate the announcement by the Minister of Culture and Communications today. Certainly the support, in response to my questions and prodding for the saving of the Ontario film industry, is a very critical decision by his government. It is a very critical decision for the future of that industry in Ontario today.

I would say simply that I wish that the minister could have made the announcement a little sooner and saved perhaps a number of ulcers and nerve-wracking weeks and months for some of the people who have spent sleepless nights wondering whether their jobs would still be available for them in the next two years. In reality, at least the announcement has come before the closing and the loss of the program together. We thank the government for that announcement today.

NATIVE ISSUES

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise in response to the statement today from the Minister of Natural Resources and minister responsible for native affairs. First, I want to congratulate the minister for beginning to come to grips with this very difficult situation. We in the Progressive Conservative Party realize that those negotiations are very difficult.

Second, and here is the bang, I am also pleased to see his conversion to true consultation. I recall, with my colleague the member for Simcoe East, attending in Thunder Bay the conference of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters in early March where they were very upset that the minister had in January made a decision to allow unfettered hunting and fishing to the natives, the Algonquins of Golden Lake, very upset that his consultation did not occur first, prior to making that unilateral decision. Now he is telling this Legislature that he is going to go out and consult. I congratulate him for that. I trust he will understand that I believe it is a bit late.

I hope the minister will consult with Scott Hayden, who today presented some 8,000 signatures on behalf of an ad hoc committee called Save Algonquin Park. I attended their press conference this morning as our party's Tourism critic. It is 8,000 signatures of people who are very much concerned, and I would suggest to the minister that they would not be concerned if he had consulted with them first, prior to allowing unfettered access to these resources by the natives.

1410

I hope also that the minister will consult with Professor John Theberge of the University of Waterloo, who on the subject of moose hunting in Algonquin park says, "No hunting is the only thing that is acceptable in this population as far as I'm concerned.... It's folly biologically." I hope the minister will take his points into consideration.

As I say, we do from the bottom of our hearts wish him well, because we realize it is a difficult task he has before him, but on a final note, I also hope as Tourism critic that he will take into account the very real concerns out there as we head into the peak season. People are worried they are going to get wounded or shot in Algonquin park as the result of natives having access to those resources. They are also very much worried about motor boats in the park. So I hope the minister will take those concerns, and if there is no basis for those concerns, that he will dispel those beliefs as quickly as possible.

Mr Speaker: It is time for oral questions; the Leader of the Opposition.

[Applause]

Hon Mr Cooke: It's all time on the clock.

Mr Nixon: Should I tell you, Mr Speaker, that I think applause in this House is often misdirected and useless and I wish people would stop doing it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM

Mr Nixon: I want to bring to the member's attention, by way of a preamble to a question to the Premier, something that he himself said to his new-found friends, the business moguls of Wall Street, in the Plaza Hotel of New York City on 30 October: "You know it is important to clean your glasses, but you don't spend your whole life cleaning your glasses. Once you have cleaned your glasses, you get on with the job of trying to do things."

The government has been in office six months. Since we rose before Christmas, 101 days have transpired since he and his colleagues have been preparing for this session, in which the people in general and the opposition in particular expected to have a legislative program presented that would implement those commitments made by the NDP during the election campaign. With the exception of two or three footling announcements, nothing of significance has been brought before the House, certainly no legislative program. How does the Premier, who must take the full responsibility for this, defend such an indefensible lack of action?

Hon Mr Rae: I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am dumfounded that he would see things in this way. First of all, let me deal directly with the question of the legislative timetable. We have taken the approach that there were two bills which we presented for second reading prior to Christmas which went out for committee review and are now coming back to the House. They deal with rent control and they deal with the support for children and for spouses who are affected. Now, those two bills --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me just say the government has taken the approach that we want to get those bills passed, that we want to get those bills through the House and then we will move on with the rest of the agenda, which the government is ready to proceed with, but we would much prefer to deal with those two bills, and that is the approach that we have taken.

That approach may be a little too coherent to appeal to the Leader of the Opposition, I do not know. It seems to me straightforward enough. If he thinks that the hundreds of millions of dollars that are now not being paid, and during his entire administration, the whole time, the five years in which the Leader of the Opposition was Treasurer, in which women and children were not supported by their former spouses, if he thinks that bill is unimportant or insignificant to the literally tens of thousands of people who have been affected by that neglect, well then I simply disagree with the Leader of the Opposition in that regard, and I think there are many others as well.

We want to proceed with the rent control legislation. We want to deal with that question, because we think it is important to provide for that kind of protection.

We have been working very hard to make sure the people of this province get the best possible government. We will continue to do that, but believe me, there is going to be no lack of things for the Leader of the Opposition to do if he only chooses to do them.

Mr Nixon: Whenever the Premier gets sanctimonious and aggressive, we know he has a weak point. In this particular instance only he is responsible for the lack of programs being put before the people and this Legislature. As a matter of fact, just this week I was reading in the Brantford Expositor an article by Eric Dowd, the dean of all deans, and he said as follows, "Indeed, one of the Premier's senior advisers yesterday bragged, 'The ministers don't even go to the bathroom without asking me.'" That is not exactly the way the quote would normally have been put forward in Brant county, but the meaning is clear.

Does the Premier not understand that the way he is running his government none of the civil servants and none of his ministers has any freedom of action to bring forward legislation for presentation and debate in this House and that if there is a problem -- and I believe there is a serious one -- it is with the Premier and his office? How can he comment on that when in fact he is responsible for the logjam?

Hon Mr Rae: Some log, some jam. There is no logjam. There is, rather, a determination on our part to proceed with the legislation which is there, which the House considered at second reading, which has gone out to committee, which we want to get passed for third reading and which we want to get through.

Mr Sorbara: Two bills, two bills only. There are five committees of this House.

Hon Mr Rae: Listen to the leader-to-be from York North -- and I mean no offence to the other Duke of York, who we know will be running as well, but two dukes are always better than one.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we are waiting to get these bills passed and we intend to proceed with these bills. Let me also say to him -- I do not believe this and so I just say to him -- I do not think he believes that having a debate on the Constitution was unimportant, I do not think he felt that the debate we had yesterday was unimportant. As well, look at the things we have been announcing: the $478 million that has already been provided in the anti-recession program; the $15-million diversification fund already announced in Elliot Lake; the $32 million in worker protection already announced; the establishment of the Fair Tax Commission; the appointment of the employment equity commissioner; the movement on Algoma Steel; the housing for low-income singles that was announced by my colleague; 5,000 new child care spaces.

The government is proceeding in the way in which we said we would in the throne speech. We said we would consult and then we would act. We said we would provide protection, and we said we would move ahead in those areas where we could move. We are very busy. The Treasurer is working very hard on the preparation of the budget, and the former Treasurer will identify with that process. I can assure the members of the House, we look forward to an extremely active session. If the members of the Liberal Party and members of the Conservative Party want to announce quickly that they are going to pass those two pieces of legislation, then we will be ready to rip with the other stuff that we have ready to go.

Mr Nixon: I should say to the Premier that I feel his defence of the indefensible is extremely weak. He knows from experience, although he has never been a House leader around here, that the bills have got to be before the House and printed so that the opposition caucuses at least have a chance to consider them and consult on the basis of the proposals that come from the government. Some sort of weird idea comes from the Premier that once he has made up his mind and pulls the plug on one or other of his ministers, and something comes forward by way of legislation, it proceeds without delay; that is naïve in the extreme. Surely if we are going to have any kind of legislative program, it should be before the House now, printed, and it should be available to all the members of the House on all sides, in spite of the fact that his own caucus acts like a bunch of seals and simply applauds every time he wiggles his ears. As far as we are concerned, there is no legislative program.

Can he assure me that before this occasion arises next Thursday, as it arrived last Thursday, we are going to have a program of significance and the work of the Legislature can settle down and be productive? I believe the debate of the Constitution is worth while, and I believe this House has the capability of filling any amount of time that is made available for debate, but it is time we saw the government's program by way of legislation and I hope that I do not have to raise this matter next Thursday. Can the Premier assure me that it will not be necessary?

1420

Hon Mr Rae: A couple of weeks ago, when the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Liberal Party gathering, he described me as extraordinarily weak and ineffective. Today I am something approaching a dictator, combining the qualities of sanctimony and extraordinary aggressiveness. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition, if he is going to insult me, I wish he would at least make up his mind as to what the problem is.

Mr Sorbara: Give us the health bills, give us the labour bills.

Hon Mr Rae: The Duke of York is suggesting that he has all kinds of legislation that he wants to deal with. Let me say to the Duke of York, we want to get on with the custody orders enforcement bill, and he indicates that he wants to hold that up. We know what the position of the Tory party is with respect to the rent control bill, and I say to members of both opposition parties, the way we prefer to go as a government, and we are entitled to do this as a government, is to say that we want to deal with the legislation that is before us. Other issues are being addressed on the order paper, and will continue to be, but I think we are entitled to say as a government that we want to proceed on the rent control legislation and on support and custody orders, because that is what we feel we were elected to do and that is something we indicated four months ago we wanted to move on.

Mr Nixon: I think the brand of intellectual totalitarianism of the member for Welland-Thorold is probably the closest.

Hon Mr Rae: I like it when your neck goes out like that.

Mr Nixon: I like it when the Premier's eyes get beady.

Hon Mr Cooke: Go ahead, your neck is bulging.

Mr Nixon: That is my diet, not my blood pressure. Can't you do something about this, Mr Speaker?

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Nixon: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On 7 December she said, "Bradley is dreaming if he thinks he can reach his reduction target of 25% by 1992." On 21 February, in Belleville, the Minister of the Environment repeated that she accepts the Liberal goal, the "Bradley goal," of achieving 25% waste reduction by 1992, but can she tell the House how she plans on achieving this target when she has stated publicly that she does not intend to bring forward any regulations, particularly those relating to packaging, before 1992?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am so glad he asked. The garbage and waste management policies of this government, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition knows, rely primarily on reducing and reusing the waste of this province and regarding it as a resource, something that can be used for other purposes rather than merely buried in a hole in the ground. The approach of this government, contrary to the previous government, was to get serious about reducing and reusing, and we are working very closely with municipalities that are making enormous strides in getting serious about reducing and diverting from landfill. I hope we are going to meet the 25% by the end of 1992; we are certainly going to meet the 50% by the year 2000. I am really overwhelmed by the support and the acknowledgement of the need for the kind of leadership we have shown that municipalities across this province have given since my announcement in Belleville.

Mr Nixon: I am sure members would agree that the Minister of the Environment is one of the ministers in the new government in whom we had the greatest hope, but surely she cannot believe that without strengthening regulations and establishing more direct guidelines she has any more hope of achieving that goal than she said the Liberals would have without the same sort of regulation.

I find her very convincing. She is almost like an evangelical minister calling people to come forward for salvation in the blue box and the other programs she is talking about. But she herself has indicated that it cannot be done without regulation and she does not intend to do that before 1992. I do not know, on the basis which she said she hopes she can achieve it, what her real aspirations are for 1992. I expect we have about 10% of the waste flow going through recycling now. What does she expect it will be during this year, let alone 1992? What are her goals for this year?

Hon Mrs Grier: My goals are significant increases over last year, and I am confident we will achieve that. The part of the plan that I announced in Belleville was mandatory source separation, bringing all municipalities save the very smallest ones into mandatory recycling, be it blue boxes, depots, mandatory separation and composting -- not accepting waste materials from garden cleanups into landfills.

All of that is making material progress towards our reduction and diversion targets and all of that is leading to the development of regulations which will be in place in 1992. But activity does not begin in 1992; activity began on 1 October and we are working towards those targets. The regulations that will make sure we reach them will be in place after we have finished our consultation. They will be regulations that are not just there as regulations that are not going to be reached, but regulations that fit the particular problems of the industry and of the region of the province and regulations that are developed in co-operation with the partners in this exercise, who are the people who actually pick up, manage and collect the waste, the municipalities of this province.

Mr Nixon: I feel that the minister's response was unworthy, for her to imply that this began 1 October. Even in her implied criticism of her predecessor, she must have realized that the inspiration and the implementation of blue box and composting was his, not hers, and she has done nothing other than preach about it since that time. Part of the preaching was to say to the municipalities -- except, as she says, the very small ones -- that they should go forward with this and that she would arrange some financial assistance from the Treasury for that purpose.

The municipalities, if they are expected to do that, will be making their plans now; they are well into their own fiscal year. When is she going to announce what that support will be, and can she indicate that it will extend the recycling beyond what it was before 1 October?

Hon Mrs Grier: What has changed since 1 October is that we have in this province a government that is prepared to regulate, that is prepared to say, "Reduce and reuse rather than rely on recycling." A lot of changes have occurred, not the least of which was the establishment within my ministry of a waste reduction office, the first time that there has been that kind of mechanism in this province, a mechanism that is an advocate, that is going out and meeting with the municipalities and dealing on a case-by-case situation with their particular problems.

When it comes to the enhancement of the grants to municipalities, let me tell the former Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition, that I have every confidence that my colleague the Treasurer and I will be able to share with him very shortly an improved grants program that will make the hearts of municipalities glad, that may even make his heart glad.

1430

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Premier. He was quoted on 23 January 1991 in the Sault Ste Marie Star, in response to a question on cross-border shopping, "The provincial government will do its part to combat the cross-border shopping problem in Sault Ste Marie," and I assume across the rest of the province.

This problem is growing worse day by day. There is great concern with respect to jobs, with respect to businesses that have been around a long, long time, and now they are closing their doors due to cross-border shopping. In two months, really nothing has happened. What did the Premier mean when he said he will do his part in combatting? What is the definition of "combatting," because to date I have not seen anything the Premier's government has done to combat this problem. What exactly did he mean when he made this statement?

Hon Mr Rae: Not only did I meet with people in Sault Ste Marie, but I had a very useful session with the municipal and business leadership in Niagara Falls when I was there a couple of weeks ago, together with our chief government whip. I had a session with the chamber of commerce people and, again, municipal people in Cornwall when I was there. It is obviously an issue that would be of concern to anyone. It is of concern to every province. It is not simply an Ontario problem. This is a Canada-wide problem. It affects every border community in Canada at the moment.

Having said that, I can only say to the member that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology and the ministry are working with people to try to create marketing programs within municipalities that will allow them to respond more effectively. I know a committee of the Legislature is going to be dealing with this question and listening to ideas and suggestions, but I would say to the honourable member that if he has any magic solutions that do not involve dealing with the problem of an overvalued dollar and interest rates and the GST, those three things -- does he know what they call the GST in Sault Ste Marie? Going Stateside today -- if the member has any positive or constructive suggestions to make, if he has one good idea to present to this House, I would be interested in hearing what it is, and so would other members, and we will be happy to consider it.

Mr Stockwell: I am very pleased to offer ideas and concepts that I think our party would consider to be valuable ideas. One is taxes. Clearly, taxes are too high, and that is the number one cause everyone talks about when they go cross-border shopping, provincial taxes. When the Premier got elected, he was promising he would resolve these kinds of problems.

Further to that, every issue the Premier deals with he fobs off on somebody. It is always someone else's fault. Before the election, he had all the answers. I have in my hand the spring and summer 1991 continuous learning calendar from Durham College of Applied Arts and Technology, a provincially funded institution. In the course outline, the Premier will see it offers courses on shopping in the United States and a six-hour workshop on the same. l will just read the Premier one of them. "Buffalo Shopping: Let us show you some of the best outlets and shopping areas in Buffalo."

Does the Premier feel it is acceptable that a provincially funded college, which this year, according to government estimates, will receive operating grants to the tune of $17.9 million, is offering both shopping trips to the States and six-hour workshops on the same?

Hon Mr Rae: In a word, I find the course, the words that have been used by the honourable member, rather bizarre. How else can I describe it? The idea of people sitting around talking about how to shop somewhere does not strike me as a very useful way to spend one's time.

All I can say to the honourable member is that I do not think it is a fair description of anyone to say he has magic answers. I would ask him whether he has raised the issue with the federal member from his own area, Michael Wilson, a member of his party who represents the same area in Etobicoke. I am sure they see each other socially a great deal. l am sure they discuss it. The federal government has been giving us advice. I wonder what advice the member has been giving with respect to the GST and with respect to the dollar.

The member mentions taxes. Taxes are things we have to take into account, so is the value of the dollar, the fact that the dollar is as overvalued as it is. That is a problem we have been wrestling with, coupled with the free trade agreement, coupled with the announcement of the GST, coupled with the high interest rates. All these things together have been a factor. Ontario is affected, Quebec is affected, New Brunswick is affected; every province in the country is affected all the way out to British Columbia. No one is immune from this. We are working with municipalities and with local chambers of commerce to try to be as constructive as possible in keeping customers and in looking at a way to solve the problem, but it is not going to be easy.

Mr Stockwell: We had the same federal government before 6 September. They had the same fiscal policies and the same response to a lot of the issues today. Before 6 September the Premier had all the magic answers; since being elected he has lost his bag of tricks.

The economies of cross-border towns are burning, and the Premier's government is fiddling. The biggest problem this House and the people of this province have is understanding the NDP's positions. Before the election, it had certain positions; post-election they have changed dramatically.

The Premier's previous answer simply adds to the confusion. The federal government was the same. It was the same government before the election that it has been after the election. When is the Premier going to offer solutions that he had ready at hand before being elected Premier? The Premier made a lot of promises. I would like to see him follow through on some of them. Whether he agrees or does not agree, it is making a commitment to his word, and his word apparently is not worth it today.

Is the Premier forcing the members of the opposition parties to spend $800 to go to an NDP seminar to understand its policies? That is the only place we are hearing about them, not in this House. What is the Premier's plan of attack? What is the Premier's plan of attack to resolve the cross-border issue? There are people losing jobs. There are businesses closing. The Premier continues to prance around the province consulting and discussing. The answers were so quick before the election. Please assist these people. The Premier made these promises. When is he going to fulfil them?

Hon Mr Rae: However low an opinion the member may have of me, I have the highest regard for him, and I want him to know --

Mr Stockwell: Your eyes are getting smaller. You are the first NDPer to say that.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: I know members of all parties want to make the committee structure work. Let me say to the member that if he can ever point to a time when I have had some magic answer on cross-border shopping, either before 6 September or after 6 September, I wish he would point to it, because I think in fairness he would find that this really is a tough issue, and there are no magic answers to it. There were no magic answers before 6 September, and there are no magic answers today to it.

The member is a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs. I see his name here. The committee is supposed to be studying the question of cross-border shopping. I know he will be meeting with local chambers of commerce, with mayors, with all kinds of people, and if he has constructive ideas -- I do not think he is saying that the one course at Durham College is the cause of the whole problem. l do not think he is suggesting that. If he wants to give us some good ideas as to how we can deal with it, then of course they will be considered.

1440

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. There is grave concern in eastern Ontario that the consumer is being gouged at the gas pumps. Does the minister not care that recently motorists in Pakenham were paying 70 cents a litre while here in Toronto gasoline could be purchased for just over 40 cents a litre? That is almost $1.30 a gallon difference. Motorists from Lanark-Renfrew, Leeds-Grenville, Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry are being lured into the United States to purchase gasoline. They are lining up to cross the border at Cornwall and Prescott to buy the gasoline at 24 cents a litre.

Will the minister agree that this is gouging and would the minister please tell this House what her plan of action is?

Hon Mrs Carter: As the questioner knows, we do have a free, competitive market in gasoline in this country. We also have a country just to the south of us which does not have the same degree of taxation of gasoline that we do, which leads to an inevitable border problem.

However, at the moment there are extra factors complicating the position. The first one is that we are just at the end of a price war over gasoline, and although it is nice to have gasoline at prices in the 40-cents-a-litre range, no business can keep selling gasoline at this price, so this has to come to an end. Another complicating factor is that in the United States gasoline prices immediately reflect the cost of what the oil companies are purchasing at the time. In this country the price takes a while to work through, so we are paying, not the cost that the companies are paying but a delayed result of that as it goes through. So there are all kinds of factors working on this, meaning that prices vary.

Having said all that, we are concerned about the variations. We are looking into this question very carefully and we will be coming up with actions that may mitigate this to some degree, though I do not think we shall be able to wave a magic wand and iron out all these discrepancies.

Mr Jordan: On 3 October the Premier promised he would stop the gouging at the gas pumps and protect Ontarians. In December the Treasurer said he was not happy with what the government had done regarding gas prices since the election. On 10 March the Minister of Mines said: "Above all, what I would like to see is the assurance that I am being treated fairly in terms of gas prices. What I want as a consumer and for the people I represent is that I get a fair shake for my hard-earned dollar."

Yesterday in this Legislature the Treasurer said, "There seems to be no logic to the pricing whatsoever." The people of eastern Ontario are asking this government to stop dragging its feet on this crucial issue and tell us the action it plans to take to solve this problem.

Hon Mrs Carter: First, I would like to say there has been no gouging. We do monitor this. I believe if the member opposite looked into the profit rates of the oil companies recently he would find that they were below the average profits of other companies, considerably below.

As I just explained, this is a complex situation. If the member opposite can think of some means of solving this problem, I would be very happy if he would let us know.

Mr Runciman: It is astonishing to hear this minister standing up and defending the oil companies in this province. In my riding this past weekend gasoline prices have gone from 47.7 cents a litre to over 55 cents a litre, indicating that they are going to take advantage of consumers over the holiday weekend.

I have a confidential cabinet document here, which I will send over to the minister; it indicates that this government plans in the upcoming budget to reduce gasoline taxes in northern Ontario by three cents a litre. They have another significant range of options they are planning for northern Ontario. There is no mention, no reference to eastern Ontario. This minister purports to represent eastern Ontario, along with the other lone cabinet colleague, I guess, the member for Ottawa Centre. Obviously they are not speaking up loudly enough around the cabinet table, because the Treasurer and his other four cronies from northern Ontario obviously are having much more influence.

Can the minister assure at least those of us representing eastern Ontario that the people of eastern Ontario are going to get the same break that her five colleagues from northern Ontario have arranged for their part of the province? The minister should assure us of that today.

Hon Mrs Carter: If the member opposite knows of a cabinet document saying that, then it is certainly news to me, I have to say. We are studying the problem; we do have certain ideas that we are pursuing. No decision has been made on this as of this moment. As I say, if the member knows of that decision then he is certainly ahead of us.

Mr Mancini: I will not be standing up today to defend oil corporation profits. I will leave that to the Minister of Energy.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Mancini: I would like to direct my question to the Premier. Yesterday I asked his Treasurer about the integrity of his anti-recession program. His answer was most disappointing. Even though welfare costs and cases in Essex county have risen just under 60% and unemployment levels in the area are just under 14% and recently have been the second highest in all of Canada, we in Essex county have not been allowed to participate in the educational capital grants portion of the anti-recession campaign.

The Minister of Education, in the Wednesday 27 March edition of the Windsor Star, stated that no money flowed to the two Essex boards because they did not have their act together. It is the Minister of Education who does not have her act together.

Is the Premier's anti-recession program designed to help the unemployed, or is it a tool by which ministers punish communities and the unemployed for holding an opinion that differs from the his government's? What are the standards being used to administer the government's anti-recession program?

Hon Mr Rae: The member's allegation against this government and presumably against this first minister is one that I would normally ignore, because if he really believed it, it would say so much about the lack of mutual respect between members in this House, which I do not really believe. I do not believe that in his heart of hearts the member really believes this government would, for an instant, take a view about a particular region or a particular proposal or a particular county or a particular school board for any reason that could not be explained or did not have a simple approach.

We all say things, and I just want to say to the member that I was in Windsor last week with my wife. We were received warmly by people as well as by a number of demonstrators who were concerned about the school board situation. I have had a similar situation in my own constituency in the west end of Metropolitan Toronto as a result of Bill 30, which all members of the House, all three parties, supported. We are about to appoint a mediator in an effort to resolve the school board situation.

Mr Mancini: You misunderstood me.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I did not misunderstand.

Mr Mancini: Yes, you have.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I did not. The member says I misunderstood. I did not misunderstand a thing. I will say to the member --

Mr Mancini: Some briefing.

Hon Mr Rae: I am briefed. I have got the papers right here with respect to the projects in Essex county and in Windsor. We have allocated over $15 million in addition to the moneys we forwarded to Windsor for other projects, which are proceeding.

With respect to the question of Essex county, I can only say there are more projects which will be announced, but there has been a determination and an effort to be as fair as we can with respect to the $700 million that is to be spent across the province and more money and co-operation with others. I have enormous respect, as does this government, for the people who live in Essex county, and I believe profoundly that they deserve the same kind of justice and the same kind of treatment as people who live in all other parts of the province. That is the approach we are taking to this question, and I want to give the member my personal assurance in that regard. I cannot believe that in his heart of hearts he would really think otherwise.

1450

Mr Mancini: With all due respect to the Premier, whom I listened to very attentively, I say that his own ministers of the crown were the ones who linked the school transfer problem with the anti-recession program. I did not do that. It was the Minister of Education, in reference to Essex county not receiving capital grants from the anti-recession program, who linked it to the school transfer problem. It was the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, in a recent column in the Windsor Star, who said, and I want to paraphrase it -- I do not have the article with me; I will send it to the Premier gladly -- that the boards knew a week ago the reason why they were not going to get any money. The Premier should get these articles and read them. Yesterday in the House the Treasurer even alluded to the fact that something had to be done in order to alleviate the school transfer problem.

In view of the fact that his own ministers have linked the anti-recession program to the school transfer problem, I want to ask him, is this fair, when the school boards were interested in moneys at the elementary panel that did not even have anything to do with the school transfer problem? Will the Premier bring a measure of fairness to the decisions that are being made by his Minister of Education for the people of Essex county? Will he review the entire situation to see why the Essex County Board of Education and the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board were the only two out of 21 in all of western Ontario not to receive a single penny from the anti-recession capital program? Will the Premier make that commitment?

Hon Mr Rae: I say to the honourable member that I am determined to be fair and to play a role, and I hope he is as well. In a situation that is as difficult as the one we are facing, the local member can play one of two roles; he can play a constructive role or he can choose to try to make things more difficult. It is as simple as that.

I can go through the list: Dufferin county, Haliburton county, Haldimand, Halton, Hamilton, Haldimand-Norfolk Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Hamilton-Wentworth Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Norfolk, Wentworth, York Region Board of Education, York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board, Ottawa, Chapleau -- many boards were not successful in the competition. But the suggestion that the member is making --

Mr Mancini: There are three ministers who made the decision.

Hon Mr Rae: No, the member is making a connection that is quite unjustified; it has no foundation in fact and it has no foundation in the real situation. I regret very much that he has done that. I do not think it has contributed to a successful resolution of the issue. We will endeavour to work hard, and I encourage the member to do the same. Of course, in answer to the honourable member's question, I will endeavour to be as fair as I can and to ensure that fairness is applied across the board.

Mr Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: During the Premier's answer he said my comments with regard to the three ministers and their linkage of the matter which I am speaking about had no foundation in fact. That is more or less saying that I am not being truthful to the House.

I would like the Premier to review the news clippings from the Windsor Star of the past week and the Treasurer's comments of yesterday. He will see that they are the three who linked the matter, and not myself, and it is his minister's conduct that has caused the problems in Essex County and he should have --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please?

The member from Essex South rose on an alleged point of privilege. It certainly is a point of difference of opinion, no doubt; it is not a point of privilege.

Mr Mancini: I just told the facts, not opinions.

The Speaker: New question. The member --

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, on a point of privilege --

The Speaker: Is this on the same matter?

Mr Mancini: Yes, it is on the same matter.

The Speaker: Would you take your seat, please?

Mr Mancini: No, Mr Speaker, because I have a right --

The Speaker: Excuse me, would you take your seat, please?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would appreciate the attention of all members for a moment, please.

Mrs Marland: Could we have more time?

Hon Mr Wildman: Wait a minute. You cannot break the rules and then have more time.

The Speaker: I draw to all members' attention that it is a long-standing practice, both in this Parliament and others, when the Speaker requests a member to take his or her seat, that that be done as promptly as possible. It is the Speaker's responsibility to listen to points of privilege or order and to hear the member out fully, and then to reach a decision either to deliberate on the matter immediately or to take it under consideration for a reply later to the House.

I heard the member for Essex South, I made a deliberation and I delivered that to the member, and I would really appreciate if all members would respect our long-standing practices in this chamber.

Mr Mancini: Mr Speaker, I respect your decision. What I do not respect is the Premier's saying I am not delivering the facts to the House. That is what I do not respect. He should know better. He should read the newspaper clippings. It is all there for him to read. All they are asking for is a little bit of fairness.

Hon Mr Cooke: There is no use getting thrown out, Remo; there is no local TV.

Mr Mancini: It may be a big joke to you guys, but it is not a big joke to me.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Speaker, this happened yesterday and we are trying to get our questions on. Would the Speaker consider returning two minutes of the clock? It was not our problem that this interjection took place.

The Speaker: To the member for London North, whose point I very much appreciate, I had stopped the clock at the point when the difficulty arose, so no time was --

Mrs Cunningham: I was watching the clock because we are having difficulties here getting our questions on. I think it was almost two minutes.

The Speaker: The table informs me that at the point of the exchange there were 15 minutes remaining on the clock. We will add one minute to the time, which puts it back to 15:11.

New question, the member for Dufferin-Peel, who has been waiting quite patiently.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I have been waiting for some time. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Housing with respect to the failure of his ministry to comply with the housing laws of this province.

I would like the minister to explain the embarrassing out-of-court settlement with two London landlords who went to court to force his ministry to process rent increase applications immediately and without regard to any pending or unproclaimed legislation such as Bill 4. In doing this flip-flop, of course, the ministry paid the court costs of this application by these landlords.

Does the minister now believe that people have to sue this government to uphold the law?

1500

Hon Mr Cooke: I would indicate to the member and explain to the member, and I am sure as a lawyer he understands, that the agreement the Minister of Housing reached with the landlords involved was not a precedent. It was nothing. What we indicated to them was simply that we would deal with their applications for rent review in the order that they came in. Since Bill 51, the old legislation, is so complicated and the waiting list to deal with those cases is so long -- cases are still in place to be dealt with well before 1 October, which is the effective date for the new bill, Bill 4 -- we have no particular problem at this point. We will deal with them as they come in order.

I would indicate, though, to the Housing critic for the Conservative Party, and certainly also to the official opposition, that as we deal with the old cases under Bill 51, eventually the 1 October date will become a problem if we do not get on with passing Bill 4, and if they continue to hold it up, as both of the opposition parties have, tenants will not be protected and there will be unfortunate casualties because they are holding up Bill 4.

Mr Tilson: The minister knows perfectly well that everything stopped when Bill 4 started. It absolutely stopped, and the minister directed his staff to stop all applications. It took these two landlords to sue him to get him moving.

Would the minister not agree that this case, a humiliating reversal of his previous position, seriously calls into question the legal soundness of Bill 4's retroactive provisions? Will he now, immediately release the legal opinions he has to date refused to release, and which he has denied to me under the freedom of information application, which, of course, I am now appealing?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would just reiterate what I said. The agreement, the out-of-court settlement that was reached, was simply an indication that we will deal with the rent review applications under Bill 51 in the order that they came in. There is nothing in that agreement that affects the way that the ministry -- and I had already instructed the ministry -- deals with the applications.

I would just ask the member to read the agreement that was reached instead of simply taking the Fair Rental line that he is taking in the House here today.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co., which is located in the community of Kapuskasing, is undergoing severe difficulties. As it falls within my riding, I would like to know what the minister's plans are to help the people of Kapuskasing and other towns along Highway 11, including Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Crow Creek, Strickland, Moonbeam, Val Rita, Mattice, Opasatika and Hearst.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can very much appreciate the member for Cochrane North's concern and the concerns of the residents that he represents. I want to assure him that this is a matter of priority within my particular ministry and that we are meeting with all concerned stakeholders with respect to this particular issue. We have met with the employee purchase group, the shareholders and in fact formed an interministerial committee to deal with the problem.

As the member is aware and I am sure all members of the House are aware, we have a problem here that is very complex. It bridges beyond the circumstance that there is simply a problem with the business itself. It also involves a concern in a matter with Ontario Hydro with respect to an environmental assessment which will take an amount of time that bridges past the amount of time that has been indicated by the company that it is prepared to give to solve this particular problem. So this dilemma confronts us.

I would add as well to the member for Cochrane North that I indicated to the House last week that we would be receiving a business plan -- as a matter of fact, I believe it was last Thursday -- from the employee purchase group that we would review and also share with the shareholders of Spruce Falls in an attempt to see how we might bridge these difficulties to the benefit of the people of the member's riding and the surrounding areas. I can assure the member that we will continue to do that and report to him as soon as that business plan has been reviewed.

Mr Mancini: Point of privilege.

The Speaker: New question?

Mr Mancini: No, this deals with the facts. Yes, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Take your seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. This matter, which you raised earlier, I deliberated on. I informed you that it was not a matter of privilege and if you wish to see me in my chambers beyond question period I would be more than delighted to meet with you.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr McClelland: My question is for the Minister of Labour. He would probably be aware, and I am sure he is, that today Canada Packers is shutting down in Brampton. One hundred and twenty-five men and women will be put out of work. Obviously any action that may be forthcoming from him or his ministry is too late for them.

Let me take a moment and draw his attention to the situation, the status of the Caterpillar tractor plant in Brampton. That plant is in my riding. The American headquarters, he may be aware, is considering closing the Brampton plant. That would put 400 people out of work. I happen to know for a fact that many of the workers have been in touch with the minister's office, have communicated with him. In fact, the former NDP candidate, who very graciously ran against me in the last election, has contacted the minister for help. He has beseeched the minister personally for help.

What, if anything, is the minister doing? What kind of answer can the minister give that he has done for those people? It is too late for the people at Canada Packers. What is he going to do for the people at Caterpillar tractor, the 400 men and women who face losing their jobs by the middle of next month? What is the minister doing for them?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member will realize that what is happening in our province is a devastating price that we are paying for the free trade agreement and the high dollar and the interest rates. I think he will also know that he may be getting the calls in from his riding or neighbouring ridings. I am getting them in from right across the province. I am well aware of the problem that he is raising with us today. I want to tell him also that within our jurisdiction we are doing and will do everything that we are able to do.

We set up the minute that we know, and indeed in advance of the closures in many cases, the labour adjustment committee within the plant to try to start cataloguing the skills and what is needed for the workers. We assist the health centres in the communities to provide counselling and help and direct the people to programs. We have enriched the Transitions program and are continuing with the program for older worker adjustment, the older worker program. We will take every action that we can to assist these workers within our mandate. Very shortly we will also be debating in this House, I hope, the support for workers in closures and plant receiver and bankruptcy situations.

In terms of stopping the plants, we are looking -- that will take a little longer -- at legislation as to whether or not there is anything that we can do in terms of longer notices and a look at the specific plants. We are really facing a situation that also involves the federal authorities in terms of the branch plant economy that exists in this province, and there is not an awful lot we can do specifically about that.

Mr McClelland: I would like to remind the minister, and I am sure he need not be reminded -- he has been reminded many times by my colleagues of both parties on this side of the House -- of his Premier's election promise to bring forward measures to protect workers facing job loss due to plant closures. In fact, two weeks ago I sat at the meeting of the local union and had the president of the local stand up and say, and I repeat to the members what he said: "It is all right, brothers and sisters. I stood proudly with the Premier on the steps of the Legislative Assembly yesterday, and he is going to take care of us." Two weeks ago Sunday he told them that, and 125 of those people are out of work today with 300 more coming in a few weeks in my riding.

It is fine for the minister to say all the wonderful things he is going to do. Two years ago in opposition the minister said that he could not afford to allow this to be fluffed off on the feds or any other excuses. It is not good enough. It was not good enough then, it is not good enough now.

What is the minister going to do? It is too late for the people at Canada Packers, 125 men and women out of work now; 300 more, possibly 400, in two and a half, three weeks, out of work. What is he going to do? What can he tell them? He could stand in his place in opposition and promise all the wonderful things. He stood and said it. His Premier said he was going to do it. When is the minister going to deliver?

1510

Hon Mr Mackenzie: To the best of our ability I can tell the honourable member we have already started to deliver. We started to deliver in putting in place the capital works programs. We started when we put in place $32.5 million of new money for training programs and upgrading skills programs, in setting up the office of labour adjustment, and we will shortly be following through with some of the protection legislation I talked about. All of these things we are doing. We will do the best we can, and that is the best we can do.

TIRE RECYCLING

Mr Cousens: The question is for the Minister of the Environment. Well over $100 million has gone into the province's general revenue fund from the Ministry of the Environment. This money that was announced by the former Treasurer represents the $5 Ontario scrap tire tax, and yet of that $100 million that has gone into the Treasury, less than $10 million of this amount has been dedicated to tire recycling initiatives. While the Ministry of the Environment grapples with the politically correct solution to this problem, old tires are spinning into the landfill sites at a rate of seven million per year. The minister's scrap tire advisory council appears to be in limbo with members having resigned in frustration. Creative ideas for recycling tires are sitting on some bureaucrats' desks, and millions of tires are being stockpiled and buried just waiting for another Hagersville to occur.

Will the Minister of the Environment please tell us what she is doing with these millions of dollars and, more specifically, how much of it is being used towards recycling tires.

Hon Mrs Grier: The assumptions in the preamble to the member's question, I think, do require some response. First of all, regrettably, it is not money from my ministry going to the Treasurer; it is money that flows the other way, because the previous Treasurer set up the fund in such a way that all the money goes into the consolidated revenue fund and is then allocated to the Ministry of the Environment.

The other thing I would like to correct in the preamble is that the scrap tire task force is by no means in disarray. It is working very well and very constructively to try to find both long-term, short-term and intermediate-term strategies for dealing with the very incredible and very large problem of scrap tires.

Not all of the money that has been allocated to this ministry has been spent, because what we have done is invest in some very interesting projects, and I think projects that have the potential to provide a solution to this problem. One of them, for example, is replacing the aggregate in asphalt by crumb rubber that is being developed by some companies. We funded a company that makes sport tracks reusing some of the tires. But many of these are pilot projects for which a market has not yet been developed, and even though it is money collected by a tire tax, it is still public money, and I am not prepared to spend it irresponsibly, or to spend it until I have developed solutions that I know are going to be solutions to the problem.

Mr B. Murdoch: My supplementary is to the Minister of the Environment. It is nice to hear about all these wonderful things that she is supposedly spending this money on, but garages and tire salesmen are upset. She regulated them to have to collect the $5. Now they are charging people another $3 to $5 to get rid of these used tires.

What is the minister going to do about the 55,000 tires that are buried in Grey county on prime agricultural land without any environmental studies, condoned by her ministry and supervised by her ministry, and the other 30,000 tires that she has ordered to be done? Will the minister today give her commitment to the House that she, with the Treasurer, will take this more than $100 million and put it into the fund to alleviate these problems, the money that this ministry was supposed to use? Will she give the House a commitment today to use that money?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am well aware of the problems there are in locations for tires that have been improperly stored for many years but it was not until after the very tragic Hagersville fire that the Ministry of the Environment even had an inventory of where tires were being stored and began to put in place precautions to make sure we did not have another Hagersville by working with the Solicitor General to beef up the fire code and to make sure that, where tires were stored, they were stored safely. We did not even have regulations that regarded tires as hazardous waste before Hagersville.

What we are doing in the short term is making sure that all of the locations where tires are deposited are safe and secure and will not cause another Hagersville fire. Then we are looking to see what we can do to find uses for those tires. Just throwing $100 million at it, I regret to say to the honourable member, would not solve the problem, because we do not yet have the solutions. What we are doing is investing the money by giving it in grants to companies that have ideas that can reuse them by initiating and supporting the development of markets, by putting security on some of those sites that are not well secured and by developing, in the short term, a safety strategy; in the intermediate term, a strategy for beginning to get rid of the backlog; and in the long term, a strategy that will reuse all of the tires within this province.

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, although I suspect it is probably a point of privilege. Yesterday I stood and requested some assistance on behalf of all the members from the new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am pleased to congratulate her on responding positively to our request. I thought it was only fair, since I raised the issue, that I also extend our thanks to her.

The Speaker: It is good to hear compliments in the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, there has been agreement among the three House leaders to change the order. We would like to proceed with the 40th order and do second and third reading of that bill today.

TOWN OF MARKHAM ACT, 1990

Mr Cousens moved second reading of Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Cousens moved third reading of Bill Pr38, An Act respecting the Town of Markham.

Mr Cousens: In moving third reading of Bill Pr38, I would like to thank the House. Yesterday we were in the standing committee on regulations and private bills. The committee unanimously supported this bill. It is an important bill to our community and is very similar to the one that was brought forward in this Legislature on 20 December by the member from London, as well as similar to a bill in the city of Toronto that gives extra protection and assistance to municipalities in protecting heritage buildings.

In presenting this today, instead of receiving the quick, fast-track support of this House, there are a number of permits, demolition permits, that are in our own community right now that could be stayed for at least a short time. What we are seeing-in this bill then is that all applications for demolition permits will go before the town council for approval.

1520

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member for Markham. This is a matter which is of some importance, and it would be appreciated if the collection of various conversations could find some other location or at least reduce the level of sound so that the member for Markham can continue with his remarks.

Mr Cousens: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just know that they are so agreeable today with there being a day off on Monday. They are all just getting ready for their weekend plans.

As we look at this important bill to our community, it certainly will give our town an opportunity to look at any demolition permits that will go before town council. Town council will then have an opportunity to refuse an application for demolition and prohibit any work from being done to demolish or remove the building structure without there being a long-term plan for that property. It also increases the maximum fine for demolishing without a permit.

It is something I think, and certainly in talking with the member for Mississauga South and other members of our caucus, and even on the committee, that may well be an issue that the whole Legislature will want to look at, where there will be a bill brought forward for all municipalities to have some kind of protection to protect their heritage buildings.

In presenting this bill for consideration, I appreciate the support shown already by members of the Legislature and certainly hope that as it is considered today, it will be considered very quickly by other powers that be so that some of those buildings that have bulldozers standing by ready to knock them down will have an excuse to stop, especially since we have proceeded so quickly on this.

Motion agreed to.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Cooke moved second reading of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will be very brief on this bill. Bill 32, the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Statute Law Amendment Act, will implement the election at large of the chairman in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. In other words, all qualified electors across the region will have the opportunity to vote directly for the candidate of their choice for the position of regional chair. This change will take effect for the municipal elections to be held this year.

This legislation also gives the chair a regular vote to vote on any matter before council; however, the right of the chair to cast a tie-breaking vote has been removed.

The clerk of the city of Ottawa, the largest municipality in the region, will serve as the chief electoral officer for the election of the regional chair.

In the debate which followed the Bartlett report and in the letters I have received since becoming the Minister of Municipal Affairs, one thing has become evident: There seems to be a general agreement that a position as powerful and as important as the chairman of the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton should be directly accountable to the people of that region. Permitting every qualified elector the opportunity to vote on who will serve as the regional chair will simplify and clarify the link between the chair and the electors.

I know there are concerns, and I agree with the concerns, about the election expenditure limits. The reason that item has not been specifically dealt with in this piece of legislation is that the formula that calculates how much money can be spent by candidates at the municipal level is part of the municipal election expenses law. We have committed ourselves to studying and consulting on that law over the next couple of years for the 1994 election.

The member for Oriole raises her eyebrows at that comment, but she will understand, as I do, that some amendments were made for the 1991 election. That law was passed just before Christmas. There could not be further and more extensive changes and not have consultation, and we did not have time from 1 October to December to have consultation on major changes in the election expenses act.

If she wanted to see more extensive changes in the municipal election expenses act, I would have expected that they would have been in the legislation we dealt with before December, since I simply accepted the amendments that had been presented by her party. The entire package was put together by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, John Sweeney. If she was not satisfied with that package, she was a member of the cabinet in the former government and that package should have been more extensive, as we said we would like to see it.

Over the next couple of years we will be looking at limits. We will be looking at things like contribution credits and how people can participate to a greater extent in that process. But in the meantime, we had to make some response to the Bartlett report and the Graham report that was commissioned by the former minister.

As I explained when this bill was introduced, this is not, as I will fully admit, an extensive response to the Graham report, but the time limits, in my view, were just simply unacceptable. I received the Graham report on the Friday before the cutoff for introduction of legislation into the Legislature in December. As members know, we cannot introduce and debate legislation during the last two weeks that the House sits at the end of a session. Then I had to wait a week to have that report translated into French and release the report, and then get some response; to say immediately we were going to respond as a government with extensive changes to the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act, and no consultation with other people at the local level, I think would have been unacceptable for a new Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I think the major problem was the type of time frame that the previous government had put in place. The Graham commission was appointed in July 1990 and then the deadline to respond was 30 November. If the previous government was serious about substantial reform in Ottawa-Carleton, I think it would have got on with it before July 1990.

I do believe very strongly that in studying boundaries, whether it is at the federal level for electoral boundaries, or whether it is at the provincial level or the municipal level, there has to be extensive consultation. When we do it at the provincial level, members will know that a commission is appointed. They put out some suggested boundaries, they have public hearings, they then come back and redraw the boundaries and then they put those out for feedback and consultation. Then they draw the boundaries for a final time, which are then reported to the Legislature and legislation is introduced to enact them.

In the Graham process there was consultation. She drew the boundaries, they were submitted to me and that was the expectation for implementation. I do not believe that is proper, adequate consultation with the people who live in Ottawa-Carleton.

I know there are some people in the region who are not entirely satisfied, but I also know that there are a lot of people at both tiers of government who have expressed to me that they would rather us go this route with limited reform now than to have implemented all of Graham and have not had the adequate consultation with the locally elected people.

So I admit that it is an imperfect process, but I believe that it is a better process to go this way, this limited reform route now, and then after the municipal elections are completed this year, to work out with the locally elected people and the MPPs from the Ottawa-Carleton area a process whereby we can look at the more extensive reform for the 1994 election.

1530

Mr Daigeler: First of all, let me say I appreciate that the minister is acknowledging that this initiative today is a very limited one and that he intends to introduce further reforms and that he seems to agree with the people in Ottawa-Carleton and with the previous government that a look at the effectiveness and the accountability of the regional government is needed.

I think implied in his statement is also the recognition of the value of the regional government in Ottawa-Carleton. There are people in our area who question the very essence of the region, and I, for one, am not one of those who says we should do away with the regional government. I think it fulfils an important purpose of co-ordination and leadership for certain services in the Ottawa-Carleton area. There is always room for improvement, but I think the fact that we have a regional government is a good one and it would seem to me that the minister is agreeing with that.

The minister's objective, as he has stated, is to make regional government and the chairman more accountable to the people. Again, there would be few people who will quarrel with this objective. I think all of us will agree that in a democratic society there should be an opportunity for the people to express themselves on the functioning and the work of their representatives, and the regional chairman is certainly one of them.

I think in principle, again, I share the objective of the minister and in fact it was one when we were in government that we were looking at as well. In fact not only did we look at the question of accountability, we also looked at this proposal of the election of the chairman. I can tell him that it is not a black and white issue. I think reasonable people can argue that, yes, the election of the chairman at large will make the position of the regional chairman more accountable, and I think there are also reasonable people who will take the opposite side.

I do not think this particular bill is one on which the government will have to stand afoul, so I am prepared today to support the minister in this initiative.

Nevertheless, I personally have some very serious reservations and I am rather sceptical, but I am prepared to give it a try. I am very sceptical that in fact the minister will achieve his objective with this particular initiative.

I am aware that, for example, my own city council, the city of Nepean, has voted in favour of the election of the regional chairman at large. On the other hand, I feel that the real problem is the election of the full regional council and to make the whole regional council in Ottawa-Carleton much more visible and in fact more accountable for its actions, because up to now I think the chairman in Ottawa-Carleton has been somewhat of an easy scapegoat for decisions that were actually taken by regional council.

Right now the regional chairman in Ottawa-Carleton does not even have a vote, so obviously the decisions by the region are taken, first of all, by the executive, and second, of course, by the over 30 regional councillors, who to some extent are elected and to another extent are simply appointed. I may remind the minister that at the present time the regional chairman will only vote when there is occasion to break a tie. So in my opinion, regional councillors in our area have found it convenient at times to hide, when there were unpopular decisions, behind the chairman and to put the blame, as it were, on the regional chairman. With the election of the chairman at large, I think this will be even more the case, and I think that is unfortunate.

I think really where the problem lies and what the minister should have done is to make sure that the regional councillors, all of them, are much more clearly identified in the public's mind as being responsible for the decisions which in fact they are making right now. I think the only way to do that is to make the public more conscious of the fact that the people who are responsible and who should be responsible for decisions of the region include not just the chairman but the whole council.

I am sure that the minister, from his philosophical orientation, will agree with me that we do not want to create some sort of a king of Ottawa-Carleton who can reign just at his discretion. I think that will be the furthest away from the minister's mind. I do not think it necessarily has to happen, but I am afraid that with this simple and singular reform -- and that is all that the minister is doing at the present time -- that is in fact what will happen. We will see the role of the regional chairman becoming strengthened further, even more, in a sense, absolute, and I am worried about that. I do not think that is the right way to go.

I think it is unfortunate that the minister did not concentrate his efforts on the reform of the regional council. In fact this is what many of the, non-partisan advisers who had been asked by the previous government to study this question have said.

For example, Katherine Graham was a very distinguished professor of public administration at Carleton University. She has precisely made that point, that she is worried that electing the chairman at large will make that person and that office even more powerful than it is already at the present time. After all, there will be over 300,000 voters who will be voting for that person, and afterwards that person certainly will be able to claim a very, very strong mandate. Not even the Prime Minister in this country can claim that kind of a mandate, so Katherine Graham advised against that.

Also, David Bartlett, who has done a very extensive study of this matter and has done a lot of consultation, clearly spoke against this. Perhaps, if I may, I will quote from an article that he recently wrote. It appeared in the Ottawa Citizen as well, and I sure hope that the minister has seen it. I hope the member for Ottawa Centre brought it to the minister's attention. Here is what he has to say, David Bartlett, who did the study upon which the previous government based its recommendations and its initiatives of reform:

"In politics, perception is everything. At present, the regional chairman appears to the public as a rather remote and insensitive functionary, more bureaucrat than politician. He accordingly serves the council as a very useful lightning rod, attracting criticism of regional performance and sending it to ground while the other councillors, who are in fact responsible, escape unscathed.

"Councillors score brownie points by publicly blaming their chairman for all the real and imagined sins of the region. Meanwhile they quietly support him" -- or her, if an election is intended by the new government -- "where it counts, with their seldom-reported votes on business coming before the council."

So Mr Bartlett makes precisely the point and expresses precisely the fear that I am putting forward today. Then he goes on to say:

"Direct election will change all this. The chairman will not be responsible to the council but only to the votes, and then only if he stands for re-election."

Again, or if she stands for re-election. "Between elections, he is accountable to nobody at all, and there will be no built-in mechanism for resolving a deadlock between chairman and council."

I agree and I share that fear expressed by Bartlett, that fear expressed by Graham.

On the other hand, I am conscious of the fact that there are a fair number of people who perhaps have not looked at all the consequences of this particular initiative who are in support of electing the chairman at large and they are willing to take this risk.

The minister is saying he could not do that wider reform, with which he agrees, because he did not have the time. Well, he had the time from Christmas until now to bring this bill forward. Why did he not have the time to continue the consultations on the Graham report? There were three months. There was a lot of study already done before. Graham herself went to all the councils in Ottawa-Carleton and did extensive consultation before she arrived at her recommendations, and the minister still had from Christmas until now to do further consultation with the people in Ottawa-Carleton. So why is he saying that he did not have enough time to really make a major change to what I think is most needed, and that is to make all the regional council more visible and more accountable to the people of Ottawa-Carleton?

1540

My municipality, the city of Nepean, in fact has for a long time had a direct election of regional councillors. Quite frankly, we are quite satisfied with this system and we will certainly continue to have that. However, the other municipalities do not have this kind of election. To tell members the honest truth, even in Nepean I have met people, and they come to me on a regular basis, who despite having elected and participated in an election for regional councillor still are not that conscious, not that aware who their regional councillors are, because there are also municipal councillors and usually the people identify more with their municipal councillors. So I often have to point out to people that really this particular concern is one that your representative, your regional councillor is looking after and is elected to make decisions on.

In my opinion, there too, even though in Nepean we have had elections, there is still the need to make all the regional councillors more visible, more clearly identified with the decisions that they are taking at the present time and that they will be taking in the future, and those decisions, and I think we are all agreed on that, are becoming even more important. There is a lot of money involved and a lot of major decisions that are being taken by the region. I think anybody who is following the municipal scene will agree with me that this is in fact the case. Environmental services, transportation, all the overarching planning issues for the region, those decisions are taken by the region.

Therefore, I am disappointed that the minister failed to proceed with the reform that we introduced, with the very valuable work that was done by a very independent adviser, Professor Graham, and that he failed to put forward a comprehensive reform that would address that problem which is the issue in Ottawa-Carleton, and that is to make all of the regional councillors accountable and visible for the decisions that they are making.

I will not go on, because there are some other members who wish to put their views on the record. As I said at the beginning, this issue is one that members can have different opinions on and they may be prepared to say, "Well, I'm willing to risk and see whether it works out." In that regard I am prepared to say he is the minister, he has made that decision and if he wants to take that responsibility, I am prepared to support him in this. I will certainly continue to argue for further reform and for making all of regional council visible. I do hope when the time comes that the minister will be able to achieve that which we are all interested in, and that is the accountability of the total regional council.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to take 30 seconds to respond to the member. He was indicating that we should have brought in more comprehensive change and that we could have done that because we could have brought it in now. He knows as well as I do that under the municipal election expenses act candidates are able to start registering on 1 January for election; it was quite essential that we indicated to Ottawa-Carleton what our intentions were before we adjourned at Christmas, so that individuals who wanted to run for the chair's position could declare themselves right up front and begin to look at the position. It was very important that this be in place, and that is why the time frames were essential.

The member for Ottawa East will disagree with all of this, but if he is really upset with this process I hope he said this to Mr Sweeney in the past, because if there were problems with the time lines, which there were, and if there was confusion and lack of planning, that clearly resides with the Liberal caucus and the Liberal government before we took office. We are doing the best job we can under the circumstances. I agree, Mr Sweeney and the former minister left us somewhat of a mess with this situation.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am going to respond to the member for Nepean, but before I begin to do that, I want to say I find the remarks of the present minister that we left a mess less than acceptable. There was certainly a bill introduced in this House on 17 May, Bill 168, that had been two years in consultation, it was very clear. Those are the facts and that was the way this was left. There was the Graham report that follows it -- it may or may not have needed to be followed, but the outline of good legislation was there, the consultation had taken place and it did not.

To respond to the member for Nepean, I do feel that the people of Ottawa-Carleton, as he says, want to have more accountable government and they want to have their vote valued, and that is the fundamental of democracy. The franchise is certainly alive and well in Ottawa-Carleton. I feel it is not going to happen the way the voters of Ottawa-Carleton hope it will, because the regional chair -- and I would like to have the term of this bill "regional chair" or "regional chairperson" rather than "regional chairman," if I may suggest -- is only one member of a larger body and only has at this point, by the bylaws of that municipality, the privilege of voting to break a tie.

It is very difficult to ask for day-to-day accountability of a person in this position, and although I do respect the wishes of the people of Ottawa-Carleton and I do support them certainly with everything that I have, I believe the government of the municipality should be more accountable. I am very, very sorry, as the member for Nepean says he is, that the reform has to be so limited, that the reform has to be so piecemeal, that the reform is related to only one position on a council that at this moment contains more than 30 members. Those are my comments.

Mr Grandmaître: I too will have to remind the minister or tell the minister that today we are voting on half a solution only.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's what I said.

Mr Grandmaître: This is only half a solution and we had plenty of time to do a complete job.

Hon Mr Cooke: You know better than that. Be fair.

Mr Grandmaître: The minister is absolutely right and I will give him credit, a little bit of credit, by saying the Bartlett report was on time, with full consultation of the 11 municipalities and some 30 public meetings. The population of Ottawa-Carleton as very well consulted. On the Graham report, Ms Graham reported to the minister on 18 December saying, "Minister, I have the solutions for you," but as usual the minister and the government, the NDP government, decided to stall the issue again. I will tell members why they stall the issue.

Hon Mr Cooke: You're not being fair.

Mr Grandmaître: I will tell members why they stall the issue. I had personally maybe four or five private meetings with the minister --

Hon Mr Cooke: In secret.

Mr Grandmaître: Not secret.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: No, they were in the House.

Mr Grandmaître: They were in the House or in the dining room. I must say that I had faith in the minister, I believed him, but on a fine Thursday morning, invited for breakfast along with my colleagues the real Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Ottawa Centre, he decided to go one-tier. This is unacceptable.

1550

Mr Ferguson: I will be very brief. I think we would recognize the bilateral review as well as the Graham report that was tabled. Although it provided some good, solid research, it certainly did not provide any consensus of direction that Ottawa-Carleton should take in the future. As a result, I think it is important not to rush into a plan for which there is not any real solid direction or consensus. I think the members are well aware of that.

I want to point out that not only Nepean but the city of Ottawa approved the election of the regional chairperson directly by the voters, as well as regional council; so this is very much a request from the local municipality to the province. It is certainly not the province dictating to the local municipality whether or not the regional chairperson ought to be elected.

In any event, some of the other local municipalities did not comment on the whole question of the direct election of the regional chairperson. However, direct election has the support of the Federation of Citizens' Associations of Ottawa-Carleton and the city of Ottawa, as I have already mentioned. The district labour council as well has endorsed the at-large election of the regional chairperson.

While the minister has acknowledged that this is only half of the solution, I think we recognize that time just did not permit us to go out there and consult with the public on a report that did not provide a lot of focus or direction on where Ottawa-Carleton ought to be going in the future. It did not even look at, for example, the whole question of whether we should be examining if Ottawa-Carleton should be a single-tier municipality rather than the present situation that exists.

Mr Daigeler: I had not really planned to respond, but quite frankly, I had hoped I was not going to hear those words, "one-tier government." I presume the member for Kitchener must be the parliamentary assistant for the minister, since he is so well briefed on the issue, but I keep hearing this from the other side. I certainly heard it from the member for Ottawa Centre. I told her then, and I will tell her again, there will be very, very strong opposition from the municipality I represent, and from many others, to being swallowed up again by the people from Ottawa. If that is the intention behind this particular reform, I want to tell her, as, by the way, my council has done as well -- and the minister and the member for Kitchener would want to read the new year's address by the mayor of Nepean -- she would be well advised to do that to see what our situation is on one-tier government.

I want to come back, though, to what is the avowed purpose of this particular report, and that is to make the region more accountable. The minister says that he did not have time, that people needed to start raising their funds. I am really a bit astonished that the minister is so concerned about people being able to raise funds. I think they could have waited. I do not think the funding question should prevent a major reform of making the regional council globally visible and accountable and public to the people of Ottawa-Carleton. I think that is a bogus issue and, quite frankly, I am disappointed that was not done.

I must say, and the member for Kitchener is right, there are, and I have acknowledged that, people in Ottawa-Carleton who will say, "Yes, let's try it." I am prepared to support the people in that because it is something we do not know for sure, and since the minister wants to do that, that is his privilege.

Mr Sterling: I do not want to go over the part of blaming the minister, whether or not he could have done something, but I think it is important to look at the process of what has happened with regard to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton over the some 21 years that it has been in existence.

I supported the whole concept of regional government at the beginning, in spite of heavy criticism that did occur when these types of government were set up, with the hope that a larger government in the area would lead towards more logical and reasonable planning for the people of Carleton county, as it was before regional government was struck. The regional government of Ottawa-Carleton also includes one township of another county; I am talking about Cumberland.

It was my hope that the politicians who would be put in charge of the region would, when dealing with issues, look at the whole in most of their deliberations and plan for transportation, plan for waste disposal, plan for sewage in a reasonable and logical fashion, so the future of Ottawa-Carleton would develop in a most reasoned and logical manner.

I believe that happened for about eight or nine or 10 years, basically during the 1970s. I believe most politicians who were on regional council came to the table basically with regional concerns as their first priority. I say that not only from my observations but from talking to some of the senior bureaucrats within the regional government who have lived over those past two decades.

Unfortunately, in the last 10 years it is my belief that the regional government is now operating as a council more akin perhaps to a county council type of operation, where there is a trade-off in dealing with political issues. Therefore, for example, if there is an issue which is centred on the city of Gloucester, woe be to the councillor who votes against the wishes of the council of the city of Gloucester. Likewise in the township of Goulbourn, the city of Kanata or whatever other bailiwick we might talk about.

Unfortunately, I think we have gone from where the intent of the structure was to have a body that would be responsible to set up good transportation routes, a good waste disposal system, to a situation where we have a fracture of intent in dealing with difficult problems.

When Dave Bartlett, who was the former mayor of the township of Rideau, in which I reside, was given the responsibility for drafting this report, he came not from just an intellectual background. I think most people have a great deal of respect for his intellectual capability, but he served as mayor of the township for about, I believe, two terms and he was on council before that. He was the mayor for, I think, six or so years and I think he was on council for eight years.

At any rate, Mr Bartlett went to all of the various councils and presented his report to the former government. It was my understanding that first report was to form the basis for the philosophy of change to the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton. The thrust behind his report was to say to people who wanted to be on the regional council of Ottawa-Carleton, "You are first a regional councillor and you are second a local politician." Therefore he said to places like the township of Rideau and other municipalities, "We will make up a number of the people who sit on Ottawa regional council to run specifically for the regional post."

To my knowledge, there is only one municipality, the city of Nepean, which specifically designates three regional councillors who are elected solely for the job of sitting on regional council. In the city of Ottawa, if you are the alderman for a ward, you are then made regional councillor. I am not sure what the situation is in the city of Gloucester, but I think it is changing to the model the city of Nepean has.

1600

So the thrust of Mr Bartlett's report was to say that each mayor of each council would be a member of regional council, but that the majority of the members of regional council would be elected primarily as regional councillors. The thrust of his report -- and in my subsequent discussions with him, because I do believe he is a friend and a supporter of not only myself but all members of this Legislature and wants to see the right thing done -- was to have these regional councillors elected.

I believe he considered the popular option which has been offered to us today; that is, to elect the regional chairman at large, have the whole 600,000 people in Ottawa-Carleton elect the regional chairman. He rejected that notion because he thought it would be too expensive to do that for one individual and would put that individual, perhaps, in the hands of the wrong interests. I am speculating on his reasoning.

I think he also has, as I have, concerns that this bill will lead municipal politics directly into party politics in this province. There can be no question that an individual who runs for regional chairman is going to need a sophisticated political machine in order to be elected. It may not happen this election and there may not be endorsement of candidates by political parties this first time through, but I predict it will happen either in the next one or perhaps the third.

The election of the regional chairmen is equivalent to running in eight provincial ridings. Mr Speaker, you and I know how much organization it takes to run a campaign in one of those ridings. It is equivalent to six federal ridings as well.

Hon Mr Cooke: How many provincial ridings in the city of Toronto?

Mr Sterling: My friend the minister asks how many ridings in the city of Toronto, and I thought of that comparison as well. But when you run for the mayor of the city of Toronto, you do not represent farmers, you do not represent municipalities which are not serviced on water and sewer, you do not represent people who have very many different and diverse interests across a very large geographic area. Ottawa-Carleton, from one corner to the other -- I actually represent an area which goes from one corner to the other because of the shape of my riding -- is probably a distance of 60 or 70 miles. You go from Marionville almost to Arnprior.

I would argue that the type of organization you will need to run a campaign in Ottawa-Carleton for the regional chairman will far outstrip what you would need to run as mayor for the city of Toronto. I really believe that.

I accept the minister's argument that he did not have time to properly wrap his mind around this particular issue and come to a decision. I would have preferred him not to do anything for the next election. I would have preferred that, because notwithstanding that there is a lot of popular support for the election at large of a regional chairman, I believe there are perhaps more mistakes to be made by doing that than by not doing anything at this time until you can take care of the whole matter.

One of the fallacies of the minister's arguments relates to the Graham report. The Graham report does not set out the philosophy of how regional government in Ottawa-Carleton should be changed. The Graham report is only an implementation report. Therefore the importance of the Graham report, in my view, does not match the importance of the philosophy set out by David Bartlett in his earlier report. I do not lessen the importance of drawing boundaries, but her task was confined and her instructions were much more direct.

Therefore I believe the major consultation had taken place prior to Mr Bartlett releasing his report, so had I been placed in the privileged position of bringing forward a bill, I would not have hesitated so much in accepting Ms Graham's report. If I had wanted to go ahead at all, I would have just accepted her report, drawn the boundaries as she had suggested, perhaps after a minor debate in this Legislature, and gone ahead and done it for the next election. I think what we have done now is start down a path which is perhaps going to have significant implications not only for the region of Ottawa-Carleton, but is going to set precedent in other areas of our province as to the kind of involvement of the three political parties, chiefly speaking, for support of various municipal candidates.

I am also concerned about whether the minister, who I believe might have accepted the Graham report and gone ahead, has had a reversal because of the interference of one member of this Legislature. I am referring, of course, to the member for Ottawa Centre, who I believe does not represent the interests of all the municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton. I believe she is representing the interests of the city of Ottawa and the interests of her party in that city. I believe what she is heading towards is a one-tier government, and I do not believe the citizens of Ottawa-Carleton are ready for that step at this time. So I think this bill has some difficulty to it.

I want to say one another thing. I am going to introduce an amendment to this legislation. I am going to ask that the bill be referred to committee of the whole House after second reading. The Liberal Party has an amendment to introduce as well. This is the first time where we have really set up a municipality and an election, which is going to require a tremendous amount of time for any politician to be involved in the election process. Can you imagine setting up a political organization which would cover eight ridings? Can you imagine the kind of fund-raising that would have to go on with regard to that?

We have until next November in order to do that. Under our present laws, if any of we members wanted to run as a federal politician we would have to resign from our seats. I can only assume that is done because when we run for another seat as significant as that of member of Parliament for our federal government, we can no longer fulfil the roles of representing the people who elected us as provincial members of this Legislature. I think that is right. If you decide you are going to run as a federal MP you should have to resign from this Legislative Assembly, because you in effect have abandoned the people you have been elected to represent. I do not think you can run for another post and divorce yourself from that and then go back and say, "I'm going to go and sit down at Queen's Park today and represent those individuals."

1610

I am going to introduce an amendment to limit the rights of members of the federal Parliament and limit the rights of our own legislators if they want to run for a job which is going to be eight times as consuming as running for provincial politics and six times as consuming as running for federal politics, because we are talking about 600,000 people. I represent 90,000; I think the Speaker probably represents about the same; and some of the smaller ridings, like the member for Ottawa East, I think he has 40,000 or something like that.

Anyway, I am going to limit the right of anybody who wants to run in that regard and say, "If you run for regional chairman, you resign your seat." I do not think, if I am the member for Carleton and I want to run for the regional chairman, that the people of my riding, the people of Carleton, should be left without an MPP for the six or seven months it is going to take to run for regional chairman.

I do not believe the member for Nepean should be able to say, "I'm going to run for regional chairman and I'm going to pretend that I can represent the interests of my constituents here at Queen's Park." I do not think the member for Ottawa East should be able to do that, I do not think the member for Ottawa-Rideau should be able to do that, and I do not think the member for Ottawa South should be able to do that. I think I have covered everybody, have I not?

The minister might say: "We're going to take care of that in omnibus legislation. It's something we should look into," etc. Listen, I do not buy that. We are not dealing with a common situation here. We are dealing here with the first regional chairman to be elected at large in Ontario. This is not something that has happened before.

Mr Grandmaître: Hamilton.

Mr Sterling: Okay, the second one.

I do not believe, quite frankly, I could represent the people I am expected to represent in this Parliament if I was distracted by running and trying to convince some 600,000 people, or the electors of those 600,000, to vote for me. I am going to introduce an amendment to put that limitation on members of this Legislature. I do not think we should be paid a salary by this Legislature when we are absent back in Ottawa-Carleton campaigning for another job which supplies us with a car, a larger salary and all of those other kinds of things. I do not think we should be paid by this Legislature while we are back there campaigning when a normal citizen who wants to campaign for that post has to give up whatever he is undertaking in terms of his employment, etc. I believe that limitation on MPPs or MPs is reasonable. I believe it is logical --

Mr Ferguson: Who are we talking about here, Norm?

Mr Sterling: We are not talking about any individual. We are talking about a principle.

Mr J. Wilson: They do not understand principles, Norm.

Mr Sterling: I understand they do not understand. At any rate, I can only assure the people from Carleton that I am not going to seek this post; so it will not affect me.

I do believe that the minister would have been better off not taking this step, rather than proceeding. However, it is really his choice at this time, and I really do look forward to some more comprehensive reform, more in line with what the studies and the consultation produced, what Dave Bartlett and Ms Graham produced. I think he should have taken their advice instead of that of the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to comment again. The member for Carleton has brought forward another perspective. I think we all know that the bill presented last May, which I mentioned earlier, Bill 168, could have been amended. I think, as the member for Carleton has said, the people of Ottawa-Carleton have been consulted to death on this issue. This issue has been before us now, I think, upwards of five years. The newspapers, the media and all levels have been on this issue and on this issue. People have expressed themselves in writing, in presentations, and they are really tired of this issue. But now we are really at square one.

It was most disturbing to hear the parliamentary assistant stand today and talk about one-tier government, because it is the one thing that has not been discussed in Ottawa-Carleton. It has not been part of the consultation process. The Bartlett report did not attend to one-tier government, and it stated so, and people accepted the Bartlett report when it was presented last year. Certainly our bill was greeted warmly in Ottawa-Carleton by most people; so it is really a very suspicious event we have here today. A very small reform seems to be leading to a much broader reform, and it has actually been stated in this House today that we are likely on our way to one-tier government, without consulting, may I say, the people of Ottawa-Carleton. I sure hope the consultation will be built in if that is the direction in which we are going.

Mr Daigeler: I have just a few remarks on what the member for Carleton had to say. I certainly agree with him that Mr Bartlett did an excellent job in a very non-partisan manner and in a very non-parochial fashion, of examining the principles upon which the reform in Ottawa-Carleton should have taken place. I also agree with the member that the idea of the regional council is one to go beyond municipal boundaries and parochial thinking and that the very idea of being elected to the region means you take the interests of the region into account. That was the main conclusion which Mr Bartlett drew from his study, and I certainly agree with the member for Carleton that this should continue to inspire the reform in Ottawa-Carleton.

I want to very briefly remark on the amendment, because I will not be able to speak to that further on. I have to fly back to Ottawa. I think the member has a point, but I do think that because he has a point, it should apply not just to the region of Ottawa-Carleton but all across the province. I do not think it is proper just to use this particular amendment and to put this particular idea forth and to limit the people in Ottawa-Carleton. If he wants to do that, he should bring that forward as an amendment to the Municipal Act, and I am certainly prepared to look at that. I think there are some valid reasons he has put forward, and I would be prepared to consider them, but I do not think it should happen just and exclusively for Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Ferguson: Very briefly, I just want it to be very clear here that there is no hidden agenda by this government in terms of imposing single-tier government on Ottawa-Carleton. The member for Ottawa-Rideau suggested that this is the case, and that simply is not the case. Before any further decision is going to be made on the restructuring of Ottawa-Carleton, presumably after the next municipal election, it will be done in concert with the public as well as the elected local officials from the Ottawa-Carleton area.

1620

Mr Sterling: I think we should make it clear, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs was kind enough to clarify the point with me, that just before Christmas last year we passed an amendment to the Municipal Act which says that once a member is nominated he does have to resign his seat in this Legislature. My amendment goes further. It says, once he is registered as a candidate -- in other words, once he starts collecting money to run, and my concern was that being nominated alone -- the nomination, I believe, only occurs shortly before the election, maybe a month before. This campaign that is going to be entered into for the regional chairman, just because of the sheer numbers, is going to take any one of us who would abandon his constituents to run for this job five or six months. I believe that once a member registers as a candidate, makes his commitment, then he walks out of this Legislature or the federal House in order to do that. But I just did want to make it clear that if any one of us did choose to run for this job and were nominated, he would have to resign under those terms.

I do want to say to the parliamentary assistant that there is a hidden agenda. Everybody in Ottawa has assumed there is a hidden agenda, that what we are talking about here is the first step towards one-tier government. The member for Ottawa Centre has made it quite clear that this is her desire and that of the New Democratic Party in that municipality. There could be no doubt about that.

Mr Grandmaître: Now that the cat is out of the bag and the parliamentary assistant to the minister, the member for Kitchener, is saying, "No, we don't have a hidden agenda," I am just wondering why the parliamentary assistant would even bring up the issue of the possibility of a one-tier government. I find it very surprising. I find it very surprising that the words "one-tier government" would be spoken on Bill 32, because there is no reference in Bill 32 to a one-tier system for Ottawa-Carleton or for any other area in this province. Why would it come out at this time when we are talking about Bill 32?

I will repeat myself: This is half a bill and, as the editorial page of the Ottawa Citizen says, it is a "self-serving NDP solution." Another editorial from the Ottawa Citizen: "Reform is advisable and feasible. Reaction to the proposed major restructuring of municipal electoral boundaries in Ottawa-Carleton has been revealing. Most voters like it. Many local politicians oppose it, and the province of Ontario has postponed comment."

Imagine. This minister is trying to put the blame on us, and possibly on Ms Graham because her report was late, and blaming me. But let's be honest. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs has lost his agenda and it is now the agenda of the member for Ottawa Centre: "MPP, Ottawa Centre, Wants Merger Study." I can understand the minister because, after all, she is a strong member of the cabinet -- maybe a little stronger than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and he should check this. She must have said to the Premier, "The minister has done a good job but, after all, he's talking about Ottawa Centre and he's talking about my people and I should have a say." From that day on, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has taken a back seat to what the real Minister of Municipal Affairs has told cabinet: "Let's look at one-tier."

This is not the time to speak about one-tier government, because it is not on the agenda, and I will repeat, I am very surprised we are now talking about one-tier government for the simple reason that the parliamentary assistant has raised it. He brought it up. It is his hidden agenda, that is what it is. The member for Ottawa Centre should have advised the city of Ottawa to put a referendum question on the ballot and ask people in the Ottawa-Carleton area if they want a one-tier government. Nobody wants it except the city of Ottawa, and there are good reasons why the city of Ottawa wants a one-tier system and I am not here to discuss those possibilities. I do not want to talk about one-tier government.

I find it very disappointing that the minister is saying he needs more consultation when every newspaper and all 11 municipal councils in Ottawa-Carleton are now saying, "Yes, we've had great consultations through the Bartlett report and through the Graham report, except the minister is stalling." He has had the report since 8 December 1990, so he has had seven months to look at it. But on 12 December -- I want to remind him -- that is the article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, "MPP, Ottawa Centre, Wants Merger Study," and that is one-tier.

I do not accept the Minister of Municipal Affairs's very weak, weak excuse that he did not have time to move on total reform. This is half a bill. I will repeat it. We are not solving anything in Ottawa-Carleton except permitting the regional chairperson to be elected at large.

We had time to look at the boundaries. It took us 18 months to do a complete Metro Toronto reform; 18 months, including boundaries. How come it is taking us four and a half years to do Ottawa-Carleton? Hamilton, Haldimand-Norfolk, all of these regional reviews were done within 18 months. It is the stalling tactic of the member for Ottawa Centre and the minister that is preventing a real municipal election, including regional councillors and a regionally elected chairperson, in Ottawa-Carleton.

I will be back on my feet 18 months from now talking about a one-tier government for Ottawa-Carleton and I will be speaking against it, so I am revealing the secret agenda of the NDP government.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I want to comment on the remarks from the member for Ottawa East. I think he has certainly been very clear in his thoughts. We members who represent that area want accountable government for Ottawa-Carleton.

Another whole issue was brought to the floor of this Legislature this afternoon by the parliamentary assistant for Municipal Affairs. What is so disconcerting about this, as the member for Ottawa East has just stated, is that the people of Ottawa-Carleton have been working on this issue for five years. They have been consulted, they have worked, they have expended their time and energy, and last May they thought they had a resolution to this. Though it was not to be exactly as all wished, they were certainly willing to work on amendments. Now we have these very good reports, excellent reports. The processes were approved and were fair and just. The whole thing is being thrown to The Attic of the Wind, and that is very disconcerting. Time, talent and money are all being set aside, and we are going to start from square one examining in an entirely different direction. How lucky we are that we are going to be consulted once again.

1630

Mr McGuinty: It is a privilege to participate in this debate. This issue was one of no small significance during the course of the recent campaign, and I must register on behalf of the people of Ottawa South extreme disappointment. What we have here is essentially a tragedy of no small proportions. This legislation is more noteworthy for what it does not do than for what it does.

The problems are now historical in terms of the failings of regional government. We have problems with accountability, representation, people wearing two hats and, of course, the costs associated with the government.

I think it is important to examine the historical development of this legislation, starting in 1976 when the government commissioned the Mayo commission. That report was filed in 1976, and it is my understanding that very little of substance came of it.

In 1987 the then minister commissioned the Bartlett report. It became apparent that a second report was required in light of the fact that since the 10 or 11 years previous, there had been considerable changes in terms of population in the region. The problems associated with regional government were more complex and obviously more costly.

In December 1987, as I say, the report was filed. It was prepared by a former municipal politician, a gentleman with considerable insight into the process. He brought that experience to bear in the report. It is thorough in nature. It presents an intelligent approach to the problems at hand. It is objective and it involved a thorough consultative process.

In May 1990, Bill 168 received first reading in this House. It was drafted in response to the Bartlett recommendations. The next significant event, of course, was the provincial election, with a transition in government. Then on 30 November 1990 the Graham report was submitted to the present Minister of Municipal Affairs. The report deals with the electoral boundaries for the region and the 11 area municipalities. The report was, again, comprehensive. It was thorough. It was objective. It presented an intelligent approach to the problems at hand and it arose out of a process of consultation with the public.

So what we have is a case here of two thorough reports costing -- I am not sure how much, but I am sure thousands of dollars. They were prepared in an open, consultative process. They made specific recommendations. Those recommendations, particularly those contained in the Bartlett report, were incorporated into Bill 168. That received first reading in this House.

What was this minister's response to this history? Through this bill, the subject matter of today's debate, he has ignored every single recommendation made in both of those reports. He addresses one tiny aspect, one tiny aspect alone, and that is the election of the regional chair. Admittedly that symbolically is very important for the people of Ottawa-Carleton, but in terms of revamping the regional government, it goes a very short way. I would think that the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is like a patient requiring major surgery. This legislation does nothing more than remove a wart. It is grossly inadequate in the face of the problems that we have to contend with.

I cannot accept that the minister could not have resurrected the prior government's bill and reintroduced the legislation in this House and had it in place in time for the coming municipal election. I think that had the political will been there, then certainly he could have found a way.

The minister is concerned about ensuring that we have a consultative process. The Graham report and the Bartlett report contain specific lists found within the written reports of the consultation process that took place in terms of the individuals, committees and representations they dealt with. I think the government has to keep in mind that this quest for consultation, review and study does not absolve it from leadership, and that at some point it is going to have to grapple with the problems in Ottawa-Carleton.

With respect to the feasibility of introducing this legislation in time for the coming municipal election, I think it is significant that Professor Graham, a distinguished professor at Carleton University, familiar with the legislative rules and guidelines under which we must operate in this House and familiar with the timetable kept by this House, indicated on page 46 of her report in a specific recommendation, one of seven, all of which have been ignored, "It is feasible to change the system of election in Ottawa-Carleton for the 1991 election and I recommend that this be done." She goes on to say: "I think that it is extremely important that the pall of uncertainty that is affecting all of the interests involved in Ottawa-Carleton be eliminated. Furthermore, the level of public dissatisfaction with the lack of accountability of regional government in its present form compels reform sooner rather than later."

I guess in the present circumstances all I can say is, here we go again. We are going to have more reports, more studies, more consultation, more reviews, more expenditure of public funds. I think the real tragedy here is that the people of Ottawa-Carleton will have to wait another three years, at a minimum, before the impact of any comprehensive legislation will be felt in our area. In the interim, the problems remain the same, and I would think that it is a fair comment to say that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are not being well served by this legislation. This government could have done better and it should have done better.

I would hope that the minister is particularly sensitive to the problems in Ottawa-Carleton relating to election spending and election financing, and I would hope that he will take the earliest possible opportunity to address those kinds of problems. I think it is inappropriate and unrealistic, in creating any office to be held by a public official, which office is to be gained through election, that this office should not have associated with it regulations governing election spending and election financing and, related thereto, regulations ensuring there is public disclosure.

The member for Carleton raises what I would call an interesting issue. It is one that deals with whether a person holding public office and seeking another public office should resign from the office he holds. That issue is worthy of debate in this House, but within the context of this legislation I think it is inappropriate. I can think of my own case. In the recent election I ran against a city councillor who did not resign from office. What we would be doing is approaching this on a piecemeal basis. If the member's amendment was adopted it would result in patent inequalities in other areas of government throughout the province.

I think in summary my comment is that I am sadly disappointed at the piecemeal approach the minister has taken to a problem which cries out for reform in Ottawa-Carleton and I look forward to much, much more from the minister.

1640

Mrs Y. O'Neill: If I may respond to the member for Ottawa South, I too have the same regret as he, that this reform is very incomplete. I hope the government will present us with complete reform for Ottawa-Carleton. We in Ottawa-Carleton have been waiting a long time, and we thought we were ready and we had a bill that we had presented. Ottawa-Carleton needs a progressive reform. It needs a reform that will be accountable and a reform that will be fair. This is but one small, small step.

I do think that people in Ottawa-Carleton will be happy to elect their regional chair, and I hope the office, with all of its responsibilities and all of the new powers that will be granted to this individual, will become an office that is accountable in Ottawa-Carleton. We have an outstanding region. Over the years, as I have mentioned earlier, we have shared our thoughts generously on governance for a long, long time and we will continue to share our thoughts and our goals with this government.

My hope is that the next consultative process that has been mentioned today by the parliamentary assistant will begin early in 1992. I, like the member for Ottawa South, am requesting a lot more from the minister with respect to governance issues in Ottawa-Carleton: that the consultative process will be complete; that it will be timely; that it will be given every necessary resource -- because as I said earlier, we are going to be starting from square one, it seems -- and that the results and the recommendations that come forward from that consultative process will be acted upon, because all of the worthy recommendations we have before us in this House and in all of the studies that have taken place, as I say, have been thrown to The Attic of the Wind, never to be used again, from what we see here today.

Hon Mr Philip: The attic of the wind? What's an attic of a wind?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: That is a book.

Hon Mr Philip: That's poetic.

Mr McGuinty: The issue of one-tier government has reared its head in here today, and it is my understanding that any reference to one-tier government did not arise prior to the member for Ottawa Centre's introduction of that element into the scenario as a prospective resolution of the problems in Ottawa-Carleton. I was extremely disappointed to see that variable thrown into the bag at such a late stage, when a solution which is indeed feasible and labelled as such by Professor Graham was within such easy reach of the government and those recommendations could have been implemented without much difficulty whatsoever.

I would caution the minister that if he intends to explore the matter of one-tier government, he do it very sensitively. It is an issue which is subject to very strong views in Ottawa-Carleton and a very strong argument could be made to the effect that representation is further removed from the voters. I would caution him in that regard, as I say, and I insist, if he intends to explore that route, that there be a thorough consultative process.

Mrs Caplan: I rise today as opposition critic for Municipal Affairs. My colleagues from the Ottawa-Carleton area have spoken eloquently on this important issue to their constituents in the Ottawa-Carleton area. They have spoken with frustration as well as with passion about democracy and the rights of their constituents to have reform, badly needed reform, and accountable government. They have also expressed their concern that in fact there is some hidden agenda, and I will put the minister and this government on notice that we will be very wary and very aware of events as they unfold in the future discussions of reform, not only in the Ottawa-Carleton area but in other areas across this province.

The need for reform to local government is an important issue for the people of Ottawa-Carleton, and this legislation before us today represents the NDP's response to over four years of study and consultation on reform of the regional government system in Ottawa-Carleton.

I would like for a moment to take a look at the chronology of this important event. In June 1987 my colleague from the Ottawa-Carleton region, the member for Ottawa East, then Minister of Municipal Affairs, announced a review and began a very important progress towards democratic and electoral reform.

Dave Bartlett, a former federal civil servant and former mayor of the Rideau township and representative on the Ottawa-Carleton regional council, was appointed to conduct the review. Mr Bartlett was well respected and his appointment was applauded by everyone in the Ottawa-Carleton region. In December 1987 we completed phase 1 of the Bartlett review, dealing with political structures, under the title of his report, Accountability and Representation. In November 1988 he completed phase 2; the title of that was Administrative Reforms: Functions and Finances.

May 1989 saw the phase 2 report released, and public responses were received by September 1989. When my colleague, then Minister of Municipal Affairs John Sweeney, tabled the bill in the spring, May 1990, he said very, very clearly that it was his intention to give the voters of Ottawa-Carleton a direct say in the running of their regional government: "The legislation will, for the first time, allow voters in new regional wards to directly elect someone whose only job will be to represent their interests at regional council." He was very specific in what the proposal was.

"The regional chairman, who now is not directly accountable to voters, will be chosen by regional council from among its directly elected members.

"Mayors of the 11 municipalities within the region will remain on regional council as representatives of their municipalities and to provide a link between the two levels of government."

The changes that he was announcing that day were a result of a long and thorough process of study and consultation, a process that had started nearly three years before. I can say that it was not only news in the Ottawa-Carleton region, but it was greeted with applause and acceptance and the view that in fact this would be in place by this coming election of 1991. The minister stated very clearly in his remarks to this House, and I am reading from Hansard when the then minister, John Sweeney, said, "I am introducing the legislation this spring so that this new structure can be in place in time for the 1991 municipal election year."

I am not going to read all of what was in Hansard at that time, but he went on to state that there was concern in that region that the size of government was too big and that he had a process for reform so that the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region could have reform, and suggested a size of the council of some 14 to 18.

1650

Now the new minister stated when he received the report in June 1990 from Katherine Graham, Ottawa area political science professor. She was appointed to hold public meetings and to consult on proposed boundaries for new regional wards. It was in December that she released her report and it was also, while not unanimous, well received by the people of Ottawa-Carleton, by local officials, as well as reported widely in the media. When this minister received that report, he determined in fact not to introduce and accept that policy statement, the recommendations, and he stated clearly here today that he wanted to consult further.

I would say that in fact, if there had been a new minister in the portfolio who was unfamiliar with the workings of this House, newly elected, we would have been very sympathetic to the desire of the new minister to take time, to study, to look. But the honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs is a veteran in this House. He is experienced. He knows the House processes and how it works, and he also knows that he had the opportunity by policy to state that he would implement, that he would draft the legislation in time for the 1991 municipal election year and that there would be ample time for consultation on the report of Katherine Graham through the legislative process. We could have had public hearings following second reading debate.

We could have had that open, democratic process right here in this Legislature. Amendments could have been possible, if the people of Ottawa-Carleton wanted to propose amendments to their very important recommendations after some four years, and we could have had legislation in place, as promised, by the November 1991 election.

But what did we get instead? We got NDP legislation from a new minister, albeit experienced, which I say is too little and too late. Instead of moving with fundamental reform, which he could have done and which was introduced by the former minister last year, the new minister and the NDP government have decided to simply provide for the direct election of a regional chair.

I believe that the NDP legislation is a valid option to consider in providing for improved regional accountability, but it does not address the need to reform the rest of the structures of regional council. The minister acknowledged that today, but I will say to him that he could have done it if he was truly committed to the principles of democracy and if in fact he wanted to use his years of experience here in this House to shepherd through an important piece of legislation in time for a municipal election.

I also agree with my colleagues from the Ottawa-Carleton area, who believe that this NDP proposal does not take into consideration the question of costs of running a region-wide campaign. I discussed this matter with the minister and he says it is his preference to have this matter dealt with under the Election Finances Act.

I would say to him that the proposal by my colleague, and I will be tabling that as an amendment during committee of the whole, would allow the Ottawa-Carleton regional councillors to determine what would be appropriate for their region. We in the Liberal Party and in the Liberal caucus in this House believe that people in the regions of this province should have more say and more control and more opportunity to decide what is right for them. We do not believe that the provincial government should always be the one telling everybody exactly what they have to do and how they are going to do it.

We also do not believe that what is right for Metropolitan Toronto is the same as is required in Sault Ste Marie or Sudbury or Ottawa-Carleton. We are flexible enough, when given the opportunity, to try different approaches across this province and then evaluate them to support that.

I would say to him that after four years of consultation, discussion and study, the NDP have given the people of Ottawa-Carleton an incomplete solution to the need for regional reform. In my remarks this afternoon, I have touched on what I believe is an incomplete and flawed response from this government, and it is due to the lack of leadership by the minister which led to this very insignificant, in the context of comprehensive reform, piece of legislation.

Ottawa-Carleton's geographic size and population make it one of the largest municipal structures in the province by a number of criteria. It is also significant to note that it is one of the most diverse regions of this province. From the rural townships of West Carleton to the historic smaller communities of Rockcliffe Park and Vanier to the very modern downtown city of Ottawa, the region serves a range of distinct communities of varied interests in the Ottawa-Carleton region. There has been a desire, a valid desire, throughout the region to improve the roles and the responsibilities, managing the local government while supporting the diverse economic and social aspects of the larger regional government.

The desire for improved accountability in the municipal system is not, however, unique to Ottawa-Carleton. Legislation to reform Metropolitan Toronto council was implemented in 1988 by the former Liberal government. The new responsibilities and accountabilities of Metro council has produced a more integrated focus and an opportunity to discuss region-wide issues such as transportation and waste management in that important forum.

The regions of Niagara and Haldimand-Norfolk have also participated in provincial reviews of their municipal structures. A number of other municipalities, including Hamilton-Wentworth and Sudbury, have asked as well and have approached the Minister of Municipal Affairs to request reviews of their structures.

I have travelled this province, I have spoken with leaders of government, leaders of regional government, leaders of municipal governments, and I am hearing the same thing from each and every one of them. They are saying that in fact this minister is too busy to pay attention to the real need for reform of municipal government, that in fact they cannot get his attention and that they do not believe there is a commitment to the kind of reform that will allow municipalities to fully govern themselves in a more appropriate way as we look forward to this next century.

Most of the past and proposed reviews in this province have a strong focus on the need for clear accountability in two areas: accountability between the upper and lower tier for services provided across the region; and accountability of the head of the upper tier municipality to the public. The need for accountability of the head of the regional council to the public stems from the current problem, that the regional chair in Ottawa-Carleton, as in many other regions, is an appointed position. The chair has not been elected to any current municipal position. It is therefore claimed, and I believe rightly so, that there is no clear accountability of the chair to the public.

I believe that there is a need for this reform in many areas across this province, and I would urge the minister to allow for those reviews to be conducted and to get busy. We are now into the 1990s. It is time to pay attention to municipalities, and it is important that we set the agenda to allow those municipalities to allow the people to have more say and to ensure that there is an appropriate level of accountability at the municipal level and at the regional level. This is of concern in every part of this province. Not only is it a concern among the elected political people across the province; it is also a very real concern among the public. The chairs of the regional councils who have been appointed may also feel constrained from being able to provide real leadership in those regions without a clear electoral mandate from the people of the region.

We have seen several significant legislative approaches that were introduced by our government and which are supported by our caucus. When we were in office, the chair in the Ottawa region would have been required to be elected to a regional ward and chosen as a chair by the other members of regional council. I am aware that some people feel that this is not direct enough as far as the linkage of accountability is concerned, but it is a model that we use right here in this Legislature. The Premier is elected in a riding, as is every member, and then is selected by his caucus, by his party, as the leader. So we have that model right here in defining the authority of the Premier. It has also proven to be a successful model here in Metropolitan Toronto.

This model was strongly supported in the region, as I said, although not unanimously, when it was announced by the former minister, my colleague Mr Sweeney, last spring. The model was the subject of discussion within the community. There was much consultation. There was consultation during the Bartlett review, and it was in fact that model that he recommended for the Ottawa-Carleton region.

1700

The other issue of accountability is that of the separation of roles and responsibilities between the upper and lower tiers. It was also a very strong concern in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Currently, lower-tier municipal councillors serve on both the council of their local municipality and on the regional council. This makes it very difficult for the elected members and the public to decide whether the elected member should take policy positions on contentious issues from a regional perspective or a local perspective. I think it is important that it be clear, and I think that is one of the issues we would like to see dealt with as part of comprehensive reform, so the members of regional council take a broad regional perspective in dealing with regional issues.

The legislation introduced last spring also dealt with this issue by establishing regional wards that would be held by regional councillors while local councillors served exclusively on their local-tier municipality and were able to respond directly to the local issues and local concerns of their constituents. This was not an easy solution, given the fact that there is a clear wish from the public across the region not to increase the total number of politicians in the region. The people of Ottawa-Carleton did not want big government; so as part of the reform it was important to ensure that the size of government was contained. This minister has not accomplished that in this legislation.

The Liberal government, under Mr Sweeney, appointed Katherine Graham to draft, in consultation with the people of the region, proposals for regional wards that would provide equal and fair representation right across the region. That was achieved, and the support given to Graham's report when it was released last fall is a testament to the creativity, sensitivity and balance which she brought to her work. The report provided a way to proceed in producing real reform in a relationship between the region and the lower-tier municipalities by proposing workable boundaries for regional wards. There were also some wards which were proposed to cross municipal boundaries, but this was an appropriate option, in my view, given that the regional focus that the new regional councillors were to have.

I would like to take this opportunity in the debate to thank Katherine Graham on behalf of our caucus for the important contribution she made to providing options for real reform in the Ottawa-Carleton region. It is our hope that the work she has undertaken is not lost and does not enter into obscurity because of some hidden agenda or because of the wishes of the regional minister. We hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs will heed these words. We are concerned that there is a hidden agenda and that the member for Ottawa Centre is the real Minister of Municipal Affairs in dealing with these issues in their cabinet.

We believe this legislation is deserving of support because at least it will ensure that the regional chairman is duly elected and accountable to the people. But it is disappointing that the NDP's flawed legislation, which was announced late last fall after four years of consultation, falls short of comprehensive reform.

The minister, as I stated, is a very experienced member of this Legislature. He knew the process of the House well and knew that he could have tabled the legislation and had a legislative process that would have ensured the kind of consultation that he is committed to, as I am. But after waiting two and a half months, he stated that the delay was crucial in limiting his options and then finally announced his policy, this introduction of Bill 32. It is sad and disappointing. I think it also is indicative of what one constituent said to me, that the NDP now stands for, not New Democratic Party but "now dazzling paralysis."

The NDP proposal will provide for the election at large of a region-wide chair, an election by 600,000 people. This proposal is similar to legislation that was introduced last fall by my colleague the member for Ottawa West. His proposal, I believe, was the catalyst to get this minister moving. His proposal said to this minister: "You had better do something. The people of Ottawa-Carleton can't wait. They deserve some accountability."

I do not want to get into an argument about the pros and cons of region-wide direct election versus the election of a regional councillor who is selected by the chair or by other regional councillors. We in the Liberal caucus are flexible enough to accept that there are differences across this province and to allow variations as long as the principles of accountability and responsibility are clear and sacrosanct. I can say as well that our party believes that, given the delay in any response on the issue from this government, the direct-election legislation of the member for Ottawa West provided a workable proposal for ensuring that there would be some reform in place before the 1991 municipal election. We believe that is exactly what this minister did; he took the legislation of the member for Ottawa West and said, "I can now do something."

I want to take this opportunity to thank my colleague for his leadership in the face of lack of leadership by the government and the minister on this issue. I believe that if the member for Ottawa West had not tabled his legislation we would not be standing in this House today seeing any kind of reform for the Ottawa-Carleton region. I want to criticize this minister and this government for delay, for stalling and for falling victim to decision-making paralysis, effectively putting real reform beyond the 1991 municipal election. That is unacceptable, and the minister should be ashamed of himself.

The legislation that the government has introduced has two major flaws. It does not provide for comprehensive reform in the political structure of the Ottawa-Carleton region. The minister has acknowledged that, and I want him to know I agree with him. It is not good enough. The government's bill does not reform the overlap of the councillors who are elected to serve both on regional and local councils. I agree with him. That is not good enough.

It is clearly the NDP's lack of ability to make up its mind and move on this issue that is responsible for the incomplete package of reforms contained in Bill 32. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has admitted that because of the late date that his legislation was introduced he will have to go back to the drawing board for long-range solutions. This minister and the NDP government have made the people of Ottawa-Carleton wait for at least three more years until the 1994 municipal elections before they will be able to implement real reform. l agree with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, that is not good enough.

I understand that the minister will say there has not been enough consultation, but the people of Ottawa-Carleton know the truth. He can say he needs more input and more options so he can put forward a comprehensive package, but the people in my caucus, the members from Ottawa-Carleton, are very suspicious that he has a hidden agenda or that he is taking his marching orders from the regional minister or from someone who has a hidden agenda. It seems as though the minister is telling all of the people and all of the organizations which participated in the Bartlett review that their contributions over the last four years was just not good enough for him, or he is telling them he could not make up his mind or he is telling them that there is a hidden agenda.

The other major flaw this legislation has is that it does not include any provision to reduce election spending limits for campaigns for regional chair. That was specifically requested by the Ottawa-Carleton regional council. I believe it is something that can be accommodated. It would allow the regional council to set its own limits. It would also allow this minister to review, consult and determine whether or not the effect of allowing the region more say, more control over its own election spending could be a model as he consults and brings forward reform to municipal election financing in this province. He could do it if he wanted to.

He is not prepared to accept our amendment. I am saddened and disappointed by his lack of openness to ideas and suggestions. Day after day in question period, his Premier and ministers stand in this House and say: "Give us your ideas. We're open to suggestions. Tell us what to do." Then when they get an idea or a suggestion, they say: "No, our mind is made up. No, we're not interested in your ideas. No, we won't accept your amendments."

1710

Mr Elston: It's the same old story on all the bills.

Mrs Caplan: Same story. We are not seeing any openness to new ideas, and the people of this province are beginning to understand that this is a government by invitation only. It is closed to any new ideas and suggestions and will not accept an amendment which has been requested by the people of Ottawa-Carleton and which would improve his legislation.

The minister knows he has received letters from some of his very own supporters, members of the New Democratic Party, asking for special election spending limits for the new chair position, yet he refuses. I really figured he would say no to me, but I did not think he would say no to his friends. I did not think he would say no to the NDP supporters who have been writing in asking for that amendment. Why, when the community itself is looking for some special limitation on election spending, does this minister refuse to respond? Shameful.

In order to improve the legislation, we will be proposing an amendment to the government's bill to implement an election spending restriction for the chair position.

The government is aware of a number of important issues in the municipal sector, the minister is aware of the need for comprehensive reform in a number of areas, and it seems as though this government is not very interested in providing leadership on these issues. We have yet to see the Minister of Municipal Affairs make a definitive statement on the future direction of county reform, a concern that was raised, in his absence, with his parliamentary assistant at a recent rural AMO convention.

A number of counties are finalizing their reports. They want a signal from this government, from this minister, as to how any reforms will be implemented. In fact, l had one municipal leader actually say to me, "Tell the minister when you see him that we need a Minister of Municipal Affairs." The minister has been acting as though he just wants county reform to disappear. That is a terrible attitude to take, given the time and energy that municipalities have put into this initiative over the last two years.

The minister has also decided to put two other pending reviews officially on hold. After six months of delay and indecision, he has come to yet another conclusion: He has decided it is too late for him to do anything before this municipal election. It took him six months to come to the conclusion that he could not do anything.

The minister has not moved on introducing legislation to provide clear guidelines on open municipal meetings and the disposal of municipal assets, even though stories continue to flow out of places like the city of York on the Fairbank Park issue. The minister has told the city to bring in an outside consultant to help the city review its procedures when he is quite aware that simply by introducing former Liberal legislation that was proposed in this Legislature last spring he could solve that problem. He could ensure that all meetings were open. He could prevent another Fairbank Park fiasco. But the minister does nothing -- dazzling paralysis.

The minister has tried to distance himself from being forced to move quickly on implementing the Hopcroft report reforming provincial-municipal financing relationships. Municipalities are struggling under the financial burden of welfare case loads. This government has done nothing to deal with the recession we are in. Municipalities are suffering because of --

Hon Mr Cooke: Is this a budget speech?

Mrs Caplan: The minister asks if this is a budget speech. This is an opportunity for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to be an advocate on behalf of municipalities, municipalities that are struggling with welfare case loads, municipalities that are struggling with cross-border shopping, municipalities that are struggling with lack of advocacy from a minister who they say has done nothing, and I agree with them; he has done nothing.

The Hopcroft report deals with one opportunity for the minister to do something, and I can say to him that there are other Liberal initiatives which have been put on hold. As far as assisting the municipalities with their welfare load is concerned, the minister knows that the financial difficulties they are in with meeting their obligations are because of the inaction of his government in job creation, the inaction of his government in dealing with municipal issues.

I will say to the minister, there have been studies, there have been consultations on this --

Hon Mr Cooke: What did you do on unconditional grants. Be honest.

The Acting Speaker: I do not believe that is the minister's regular seat, and if you wish to make comments --

Hon Mr Cooke: No, it is not, and I will go back there.

Mrs Caplan: It seems I have touched a nerve with the minister and with some of the back bench, who agree that even they do not know who the real Minister of Municipal Affairs is.

He knows there have been studies, knows there has been consultation, knows there are things he could do, yet he puts everything on hold. Municipalities are waiting for the province to signal its direction on many issues, and he remains silent. After six months, he still has not said what process he intends to use to work with municipalities in negotiating a new financial framework. The notion that he is going to refer everything to the tax commission strikes fear in the hearts of municipal leaders across this province.

While in opposition the New Democratic Party had a lot to say about improving planning in this province, but after six months in office it has said nothing about planning reform except to reintroduce Liberal policy on restricting subdivisions through wills, which we will be dealing with very shortly.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food has been making all sorts of vague promises around this province -- and I see he is in the Legislature today -- about buying development rights from farmers, but we have seen nothing concrete from this government and from this minister on announcing planning reform, nothing. Could it be that there are turf wars in the cabinet between the Minister of the Environment, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture and Food over who is in charge of planning reform in this province?

The legislation we have before us today is just another example of indecision and lack of leadership by the minister on municipal affairs issues. However, as we are now in a municipal election year, my caucus and my party will be supporting this bill, with the amendments we hope the minister will accept in order to give the people of Ottawa-Carleton at least some opportunity for reform in time for this year 's municipal election.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to take a couple of minutes in the summary to respond very briefly to the member for Oriole and what was certainly a good opposition speech. I congratulate her on it, but I would just like to remind her about a couple of things for the next time she is preparing this speech, which I am sure we will hear again and again and again.

The relationship between this government and municipalities, l can guarantee the member, has improved considerably the relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities from what her party had in the past. There is no doubt at all that when we took office, the common line with municipalities across this province was that there was nowhere to go but up in terms of the relationship between municipalities and the provincial government. The relationship had hit rock bottom in this province. It is completely understandable why that had taken place: the off-loading by that government.

I was shocked to understand and to learn when I got into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs that policies by her government were made in the Treasurer's office and the former minister did not even know about them until they were announced, and neither did the bureaucracy. Of course, the municipalities were the last to find out.

Since we have taken office, one of the first things we did related to the welfare announcement that had been made by the former government of 5% increases for recipients and 5% on the shelter allowance. We doubled that on the shelter side and we went 2% above the 5% for the individual rates. But we said it is absolutely essential that the province pick up 100% of that cost because it would be inappropriate to offload those responsibilities to the municipalities. l can tell members, that was very well received.

Let's take a look at the very recent history of unconditional grants in this province. What did municipalities get in 1989 on unconditional grants? These are all issues that were talked to --

1720

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I do not know what grants have to do with Bill 32, which is a restructuring bill of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. Our party wants to get on with the legislative program and to deal with legislation. We do not want to hear this silliness about an argument between the present government and the former government.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your opinion.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will be very brief, but I think I heard for 20 or 25 minutes a diatribe from the critic for the official opposition and I should have some opportunity to respond.

The recent history of unconditional grants: In 1989, what did the Liberals do? They froze them. What did the Liberals do on unconditional grants in 1990? Only a few municipalities got an increase. What did this government do? We accepted the recommendation from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and gave 5% across the board. That was very well received by municipalities. We want to work with our partners in delivering government across this province.

Finally, on the issue of disentanglement, this government has made an absolute commitment that we are going to work with school boards and municipalities to try to work out this relationship. The Premier indicated that yesterday when he talked about the Constitution, I indicated that last week when we released the Hopcroft report, and I will tell members, if the municipalities had a choice of dealing with the former government in the past on the disentanglement issue or our government, we are starting with that fresh relationship and there is trust that exists that did not exist in the past, and the member knows that very well.

On the bill that is before us, I did outline the position of the government at the beginning of the discussion. But I would like to remind the opposition that the Graham report was given to this government on 30 November. The Graham report outlined the boundaries that were proposed for the upper-tier level of government in Ottawa-Carleton. I think it would have been very inappropriate and very presumptuous for a new Minister of Municipal Affairs to accept that report on 30 November, have it translated -- so it was not available for public consumption until 6 or 7 December -- when the deadline for legislation was before the end of the two weeks in December. Then it would have all been imposed. That might have been the style by the Liberal government, but that is not the style of this government. We intend to consult and we intend to get it right. If the opposition parties want to criticize us for doing that, then that is the kind of criticism I can accept.

I will be talking to the people in Ottawa-Carleton, and we will be developing a process. We will have more substantial change and reform for the 1994 election, as I told the opposition parties. But this government is not going to be doing things unilaterally with municipalities. We are going to do it in co-operation and in consultation with them, and I offer no apologies for that at all.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF OTTAWA-CARLETON STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Consideration of Bill 32, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

Hon Mr Cooke: May I ask permission for the staff from the ministry to join us on the floor?

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2:

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Caplan moves that section 4a of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"(6) Parts II and III of the Municipal Elections Act apply to an election under this section as though the candidates were candidates in an election for the office of head of council of the area municipality having the greatest number of electors.

"(7) The clerk of the regional corporation shall make a copy of parts II and III of the Municipal Elections Act available for inspection by the public at the clerk's office.

"(8) The regional corporation may pass a bylaw providing for lower limits on the campaign expenses that candidates for the office of chairman may incur and the contributions that any individual, corporation or trade union may make to candidates that are set out in the Municipal Elections Act.

"(9) If a bylaw is passed under subsection (8), the provisions of the Municipal Elections Act respecting campaign expenses and contributions to candidates shall be applied as if the lower limits set out in the bylaw were specified in that act."

1730

The table has just asked me for clarification in subsection (8), "office of the chairman." Does the --

Mrs Caplan: It is my understanding that the amendment changing the terminology to "chair" has been accepted by the government, and therefore at this time it would be appropriate for the terminology to be consistent.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Does the member for Oriole wish to further elaborate on the amendments as suggested?

Mrs Caplan: Yes. I spoke at length to this. This amendment would allow the region of Ottawa-Carleton to lower the limit. It would also allow the minister to consult on what the experience has been following this election.

Since he has already determined that he is going to be amending the Election Finances Act, I think it would be helpful to him to have some experience in another jurisdiction where they have in fact lowered the limit. I am aware that municipalities such as the city of Toronto and the municipality of the city of North York have experience with the higher limit, but we have nowhere in the province that has experience with a lower limit.

The regional municipality, the council of Ottawa has asked for this. We believe that where a municipality has asked for this kind of opportunity, it would be reasonable and feasible for the minister to give them that opportunity to set what they believe would be an appropriate limit. The minister could then monitor and evaluate the results and determine if that would be an appropriate amendment province-wide when he amends the Municipal Elections Finances Act. If he does not accept this amendment, then it is my view that in fact his consultations on other matters will be a sham, as is his open-door policy.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to speak in favour of this amendment. I do feel that there is a new level of accountability for all elected officials, and certainly the amount of funds necessary to achieve any given office is part of that.

I feel that we in the Legislature have very strict rules about how much we can spend in any given election. Certainly the other levels of government, municipal levels, are in that same category. I feel that it is the time, particularly in an office that is going to be new, an office that is going to be as extensive as this, and I think it should be open to as many people as possible in our community of Ottawa-Carleton. Certainly, if there is no spending limit, that means there will be people who will not be able to put their names forward as a candidate in this position.

I feel very strongly that it is time to rethink this and to show the people of Ottawa-Carleton and, indeed, the province, that there are limitations and that they are reasonable limitations. Certainly then we do not go to office beholden to any one group, nor can we be accused of such. Certainly that has worked in this Legislature, and all of us have been through the same rules and regulations and we have not found them limiting. Those are my comments.

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly completely and totally support the thrust of the comments that have been made by the critic for the Liberal Party and the member for Ottawa-Rideau. I wonder why the limits were set so high in the legislation that the former government brought into existence. I totally accept the kinds of arguments the Liberal Party is making. Why did they not lower the limits in the general legislation or keep them lower when the original legislation was brought in? I would just suggest that was then and this is now. That is certainly the type of approach that the Liberal opposition has taken.

We have indicated that what we intend to do is the appropriate thing, bring in new legislation for municipal election expenses across the province so that there is consistency and reasonable controls and limits for all municipal politicians across this province. It is just as important in the city of Toronto, North York and other municipalities that there be those kinds of spending limits right across the province and in Hamilton, where there is a regional chair as well. We will be working with AMO and municipal organizations to review the Municipal Election Expenses Act and have that new act brought in for 1994.

But the member will also realize that because of the dates for registration of candidates under the Municipal Elections Act, these types of issues have to be decided before the end of the calendar year so the people know the ground rules under which they are considering or the ground rules under which they register. That is why we could not do general legislation across the province before the end of the calendar year.

I understand the limit in Ottawa-Carleton is way too high, but I think that the appropriate way to proceed is to review the entire act and to bring in proper legislation for all municipalities and candidates across the province.

Mrs Sullivan: I would also like to support the amendment put forward by my colleague. We have a situation here where a request has been made for a specific action to be taken by the government in relationship to their particular election. In this case, it is perfect timing for the minister to be able to review the situation as it exists in Ottawa-Carleton in the next election and look at that experience in association with the next election in a broader perspective. I think that if the minister is speaking about consultation he ought to be listening to this very specific and directed request from the municipality.

Hon Mr Cooke: Just one point: I would like the member for Oriole to show us the council resolution that makes this request. Does the member have a council resolution making the request?

Mrs Caplan: It is my understanding that this has been requested by the Ottawa-Carleton regional council, that they would support this and welcome this. If the minister today will accept the amendment or if he would like to postpone this debate so he can telephone the chair or the members of the council, they will confirm that.

Hon Mr Cooke: I guess the answer to the question is that member does not know of the existence of a motion from the regional council, because it does not exist; there has not been a request.

Mrs Caplan: The minister is playing word games. What I have said to the minister is that it is my understanding that this has been a request from Ottawa-Carleton council. If he would like to take a minute now and adjourn the debate so he can go and phone them, we all agree it is a good idea. He says it is a good idea. It would give him a chance to evaluate and see what the implications of this are rather than making them wait for four more years. He chooses not to do that. I think it just shows the attitude and the behaviour of this minister, which is not open to good ideas and suggestions.

Mr Sterling: I am confused by the minister. First of all, his excuse for not accepting the amendment is that he wants to deal with this in a general way rather than in a specific way with the Ottawa-Carleton region. Then he is entering into a debate about whether or not there has been a request. My conclusion is that if there is a request, the minister would grant the amendment. I therefore suggest that, because of our timing here, there be a division over this and we vote on Tuesday on it and it will be clarified whether or not there is a request.

1740

Hon Mr Cooke: The member knows very well that this bill has been before the House for quite some time. He also knows there are certain time limits that make this legislation necessary to proceed. If the region wanted this kind of amendment, perhaps it might have already made the request, but we have not seen it. I still stand by the argument that the best way to proceed is with general legislation across the province.

Mr Elston: If I might be of some assistance, we had already taken the precaution that if there were to be divisions, we might make a provision to vote on these items on Tuesday. If it is the will of the minister that he would like to make the call, we can do that. It was anticipated that everything could be set away. It seems to me that he said he would accept it if that could be confirmed. It would seem to be reasonable to do that if he wanted. If it is not going to happen, then we might as well get on with it and just vote.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let's vote.

Mr Elston: Basically, we have heard from the minister that we will get on. He wants to defeat this. Actually, the kind of gamesmanship he has displayed here is interesting indeed.

Interjections.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. We will now deal with the amendment that was moved by the member for Oriole that section 4 of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended.

All those in favour of the amendment will please say aye."

All those against the amendment will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Sterling moves that section 4a of the act, as set out in section 2 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(2a) No person who is a member of the House of Commons of Canada or a member of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario is eligible to become a registered candidate for the office of chairman unless that person has vacated his or her seat in the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly."

Mr Sterling: This amendment is put forward because the job of running for regional council in Ottawa-Carleton is going to be a very daunting task. The persons who will be seeking this office will be facing an electorate of some 600,000 electors, or the number of eligible electors from that population. That is equivalent to six federal ridings or eight provincial ridings. It is my feeling that the present restrictions on members of the Legislature and the House of Commons are not adequate to say to them, "You are only required to resign your post as MPP when the nomination day comes around," because the nomination day arrives only four or five or six weeks prior to the actual election date.

It is my belief that if a member of this Legislature or a member of the federal House of Commons decided to run for this post, he or she would require a campaign of five or six months. Therefore, I have asked the minister to accept an amendment which would require a member of this Legislature who registers as a candidate, meaning he could start to collect money for his campaign and start into his official campaign, to relinquish his responsibilities here at the Legislative Assembly.

I do not feel an MPP should be paid to represent his people in this place if he is back in Ottawa-Carleton trying to run for regional chairman of Ottawa-Carleton. Therefore, I ask for the minister's indulgence in accepting this reasonable amendment and urge all members to support this logic that is put forward.

Hon Mr Cooke: As I indicated earlier to the member of the third party, there is already a restriction that was put in the legislation just before Christmas that when a person is nominated, if he is an MP or an MPP, he would have to resign his seat. I think that protection was put in there for that particular reason, to address what we knew would be raised by the member for Carleton today; so we tried to take care of it in December. But I do not think that it would be appropriate to go all the way to the first date that they register. I think quite frankly the voters themselves would make the candidate pay quite a penalty if he was registered as a candidate for regional chair and was also collecting a salary as an MPP and not doing the job of being an MPP, and I think the voters have that responsibility.

The Second Deputy Chair: Those in favour of the amendment will please say "aye."

Those against the amendment will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 2 agreed to.

Sections 3 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mrs Y. O'Neill moves that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"6a(1) The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act is amended by striking out 'chairman' wherever it appears and substituting 'chair';

"(2) The Municipal Elections Act is amended by striking out 'chairman' wherever it appears and substituting 'chair.'"

Mrs Y. O'Neill: If I may speak to that for one moment, I would like to say that the region of Ottawa-Carleton has been well known in this province and certainly beyond, throughout Canada, for its women politicians. We have had some very exciting women mayors throughout the municipality. We have had regional councillors who have made their marks. We have had school board chairs and certainly school board trustees. Many of these people have made outstanding contributions and their one distinction is that they are women.

Mrs Haslam: I concur with this. In fact, I had mentioned it myself and was so glad to see that we did have this amendment. I fully endorse it and I thank the member for Ottawa-Rideau for doing something that I felt needed to be done.

Hon Mr Cooke: Very briefly, I appreciate the amendment from the member, and as the member for Perth has indicated, we will be supporting it. I might point out that the ministry is also working on amendments that would amend the legislation generally so that we will not have to amend each individual act. This will be taken care of across the province with general legislation soon.

Mr Sterling: We of course support such an amend ment. We only wish that the minister and this new government would be more receptive to other reasoned amendments as well.

Motion agreed to.

Sections 7 and 8 agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

On motion by Mr Cooke, the committee of the whole House reported one bill, with a certain amendment.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Mr Cooke: On behalf of the government House leader, I would like to announce the business for next week: Tuesday 2 April, committee of the whole House for consideration of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986; Wednesday 3 April, third reading of Bill 24, An Act to control the private use of Cards issued and Numbers assigned to Injured Persons under the Health Insurance Act, and debate on concurrences in estimates; Thursday 4 April, debate on second reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, and committee of the whole House to consider Bill 25, if required, and committee of the whole House on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Rent Regulation Act. We have already completed Bill 32, so that is complete. That is the business for next week.

The House adjourned at 1755.