The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HIGHWAY LITTER

Mr Cleary: Removing litter along the province's highways is an expensive proposition for Ontario taxpayers. The adopt-a-highway litter control program would be one way of solving the province's highway litter problem without costing the taxpayers a cent. It would also provide full-time jobs at a time when unemployment is at a maximum. Similar programs already exist in the United States and have proven to be effective both financially and environmentally.

The intent is to hire the unemployed, train them in road safety, in conjunction with Ministry of Transportation guidelines, and have them do the cleaning and removal of litter.

The cost of establishing these working groups would be covered by obtaining private sponsors and corporate sponsorships, allowing them to adopt a highway, a specific strip of a highway, setting up approved signs that would indicate the individual sponsors. The results would be obvious: cleaner and more beautiful highways, business involved in the environment, providing jobs for the unemployed and making our province more attractive for tourists.

I support this proposed program and I hope that all members of the Legislature would also endorse the adopt-a-highway litter control program. I am proud to say that the contact people for this program in eastern Ontario are Frank Edwards and René Laurin.

PARKING FACILITIES

Mr Harnick: In the 34th session of the Legislature the then member for Willowdale announced the planned expansion of the old Cummer GO station parking lot. The problem is that the government neglected to consult with the people in the community. The Pineway Area Ratepayers Association has made several attempts to contact both GO Transit and the Minister of Transportation in order to contribute to the decision-making process. Their appeals have gone unanswered.

The minister, in a letter written to me, indicated that public input has been sought. The residents living in the Pineway Boulevard area have had to fight to be heard by the government. The people of Willowdale deserve better than token gestures from the government of Ontario. I have asked to meet with the minister so that I could convey to him the wishes of my constituents, yet he has been too busy to see me.

I recently hosted a town hall meeting where a motion was unanimously passed opposing the forced expansion of the parking lot. If the parking lot has to be expanded, let the expansion occur with the least amount of disruption to the community. Place the parking lot on the east side of Leslie Street. Ensure that access to the parking lot will occur off Leslie Street. The ministry has indicated to me that access will occur from Pineway Boulevard. The minister should be aware that there is a public school and playground on Pineway Boulevard. The minister should not turn residential streets into thoroughfares. I ask him to listen to the people of Willowdale.

STAN NAPPER

Mr Morrow: Today I would like to pay tribute to a local politician in my riding of Wentworth East.

Last Friday, Mayor Stan Napper of the city of Stoney Creek announced that he was stepping down from his position for health reasons. Mr Napper has been battling cancer for several months and thought it was in the best interests of his community to retire, as he could not carry out his duties as mayor.

Stan Napper started his political career as vice-reeve of Saltfleet township. Later, he served as councillor of the city of Stoney Creek. In 1985, Mr Napper was elected mayor of Stoney Creek.

During his 1985 election campaign, Stan Napper promised a modern city hall for the city. On 15 June, I had the honour to attend the official opening of the new Stoney Creek city hall, not only as the elected representative but also representing the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Unfortunately, Mayor Napper was unable to attend due to his illness. He did have a prepared statement read out. I believe this was one of Mayor Napper's proudest achievements in his long and distinguished career.

At this time, I would like to ask all members from both sides of this House to pay tribute to such a fine mayor.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mrs Sullivan: I am rising today to follow in the tradition established by the Minister of the Environment when she served as opposition critic for the Environment. As she has done in the past, I am issuing a report card on the government's performance on environmental issues.

Unfortunately, the minister has failed to make the grade. I have had to give her an F in virtually every category for failing to deliver on the NDP's commitments to environmental interest groups and to the people of Ontario, both during the election and since that time.

This is not a frivolous exercise. The lack of action and direction from the minister leaves an environmental nightmare as our legacy to our children. As well, her statements have created disarray and confusion among those to whom the environment is a priority.

It is important that there be clear direction to business people who are attempting to plan capital expenditures, and it is important that there be clear direction for municipal leaders who are responsible for ensuring that there are adequate environmental protection measures in their communities. They have not received that direction from the minister.

The government has nothing to show for its nine months in office but a series of speeches. There is no new legislation on the order paper, only one new regulation in the consultative process and no new draft bills or green papers. For a minister who was singularly aggressive when she was in opposition, this is an embarrassingly weak show. People expected more from this minister and this government. Her performance is simply not good enough.

1340

RESIDENTS' PRIVACY

Mr Stockwell: On 29 April, I wrote to the Minister of Housing regarding a very serious problem in my riding of Etobicoke West. As I have not received any reply, I can only assume the minister does not agree with the seriousness of this issue.

However, I would like to tell the minister and the House of the hardships inflicted upon the residents of Wareside Road in Etobicoke. More than 30 families in my riding reside on property which backs on to property owned by the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. For more than 15 years, the residents of these houses have had their enjoyment of home ownership affected by the actions of the residents of the MTHA complex. For more than 15 years, meetings have been held with various levels of government and bureaucracy to try to reach a solution.

Someone is going to get hurt. The children on this street have grown up in fear of objects such as beer bottles being thrown into their backyards, and late-night partying is a constant occurrence.

The residents have spent thousands of dollars building fences to try to alleviate this problem, only to have them damaged. All the MTHA has done so far is promise better security for the complex. However, this promise has not been kept.

This is not enough. The residents of Wareside Road are fed up with the way this situation has been handled, and rightfully so. They have tried all possible channels to solve the problem but have just been passed around the halls of the MTHA and the Ministry of Housing. This situation has gone on for 15 years and it is not going to go away. I appeal to the minister to find the time to answer his mail and address the very serious issue on behalf of the residents of Wareside Road.

DEAF-BLIND AWARENESS WEEK

Mr Malkowski: This week, 24 to 28 June, marks the first Deaf-Blind Awareness Week in Canada, which recognizes the many contributions of deaf-blind people. The week coincides with the birthday of Helen Keller, who was born on 27 June, and it mirrors the United States' proclamation of the National Helen Keller Deaf-Blind Awareness Week, which has been in effect for several years.

Deaf-Blind Awareness Week in Canada is being supported by the deaf-blind services of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind to encourage community activities that will further the understanding and awareness of this unique disability. The rights of the deaf-blind are just beginning to be recognized.

The need for more intervenors, independent living environments and employment opportunities is at the forefront of deaf-blind advocates. We in Ontario have worked long and hard on behalf of the rights of deaf-blind persons, and we will continue to work towards better services and awareness of deaf-blindness.

In our gallery today to help celebrate the event are representatives of the deaf-blind services of the Canadian National Institute for the Blind and the Canadian National Society of the Deaf-Blind. I wish all members to recognize them here today.

BACK ON TRACK REPORT

Mr McClelland: In mid-May the chairman of Peel region, Frank Bean, requested an emergency meeting with the Premier and all Ontario regional chairmen to discuss the Back on Track report and its implications for taxpayers across the province.

Most people would agree that if the Ontario regional chairs are requesting a meeting, it is of some significant importance. However, it appears our Premier may not share that opinion. This issue is of such great importance that I wrote to the Premier indicating my support for Mr Bean's request for the emergency meeting. The Premier wrote back saying he is "unable to meet with Mr Bean and his colleagues at this time." In fact, the Premier attempted, if I can say so, to pass the buck by suggesting that the chairs meet with the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Premier should know that the regional chairs have already met with the minister and regrettably found that meeting to be of little or apparently no value. At that meeting, which took place before the minister announced her Back on Track report, the regional chairs raised specific concerns they felt needed to be addressed in the report. The concerns expressed by the regional chairs were not incorporated into the Back on Track report, prompting Peel's chairman to state, "Despite assurances from the Premier that heads of council would be consulted regarding GWA, this has not occurred."

As upper-tier municipal governments are co-funders and administrators of the general welfare assistance program on a daily basis, surely they would not only be well suited but necessary to provide insight and advice to the province on any major changes to the GWA.

Mr Speaker, I am sure you will agree that if the regional chairs are requesting an emergency meeting with the Premier, they deserve careful consideration. The time for rhetoric is over. It is time to have some real consultation. The Premier should be making fully informed decisions when making major changes that so significantly impact the taxpayers of our province.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Cousens: As we begin the summer recess it is important to evaluate the Minister of the Environment's record during her first term at Bob Rae's Academy of the Non-Performing Arts.

I would suggest the minister undertake to write several essays over the summer months to improve her standing in the next semester. Since last fall, the minister has repeatedly stated her intention to address a number of environmental problems, but we have not seen concrete action. Here is a list of essays for the minister this summer.

Waste Management: Is There Life After the 3Rs?

The Environmental Bill of Rights: To Be or Not To Be, That Is the Question.

Air Quality: What To Do with Acid Rain Emissions Beyond 1994, and the Role of Vehicle Emissions.

Water Quality: Literally a Zero Discharge Program.

Scrap Tires: Working To Bury a Better Ontario.

Biomedical Waste: Where Do All Those Body Parts Go?

It should be a very busy summer for the minister. However, if she works very hard she may be able to enjoy some time off, perhaps even a relaxing journey along some of Ontario's northern highways to take in the scenic view of purple loosestrife. Just refer to Ontario's road map.

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH

Ms M. Ward: Yesterday morning I participated in a ground-breaking ceremony for a 43,000-square-foot addition at Ortho-McNeil Inc in my riding of Don Mills. Ortho is one of Canada's major pharmaceutical manufacturers and a leading producer and exporter of family planning products. This expansion follows on the official opening in March of expanded laboratory space, devoted to basic science, of their pharmaceutical research institute.

The lab's total research expenditures for the current year will exceed $4.5 million. It offers exciting employment opportunities for Canadian scientists, a training program for student scientists, and the prospect of made-in-Canada discoveries and product development. Its research is currently concentrated in the areas of cancer, inflammation, menopause and family planning.

I am sure all members will welcome this commitment to research that will enhance and improve our health care and create high-quality jobs. I am particularly impressed by their student scientist program in which four third- and fourth-year university students work with veteran scientists for an eight-month period.

For history buffs and those interested in planning, I would also like to mention the Museum of the History of Contraception, which is located there. It contains 300 artefacts from all over the world and honours pioneers in the field of family planning.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

Hon Mr Cooke: I want to take this opportunity to announce the 1991-92 PRIDE funding for Ontario municipalities. As many of my colleagues know, PRIDE, which stands for the program for renewal, improvement, development and economic revitalization, has helped hundreds of communities with local improvement projects over the years.

I am pleased to say that this year the Ministry of Municipal Affairs will be awarding a total of $13.4 million to 69 communities under this provincial program. Combined with the PRIDE grants recently awarded under the anti-recession program, we have now committed approximately $30 million this year to help communities in all areas of Ontario.

PRIDE is a very valuable tool for municipalities interested in community improvement and development. The program provides funding for a variety of capital projects and other improvements in commercial, residential, industrial and mixed-use areas. In the past, PRIDE grants have been used to build or upgrade municipal services such as watermains, sewers and roads, and facilities such as community centres, libraries, parks and day care centres.

The impact these projects has had on job creation and economic spinoffs has been considerable. But today's economic recession, combined with increased global competition, high interest and exchange rates and rapid technological change, has accelerated the restructuring of the provincial economy. Nowhere is this shift more acutely felt than at the local level.

The government wants to ensure that existing programs and new initiatives clearly address the unique needs of communities in responding to the challenges of economic restructuring. We must ensure that our communities are fully able to adapt to these pressures and are equipped to capitalize on structural changes. We must help our towns and cities respond to this shift in economic structure if they are to remain economically strong and stable places to live and work.

By strengthening PRIDE emphasis on local economic development and job creation projects, we will help communities adapt and respond to these changes in the economy. By working in partnership with communities we can, and indeed we must, find new and innovative ways to support local economic development.

In the future we must ensure that local, long-term job creation receives a high priority when PRIDE applications are reviewed. We must also ensure that projects are designed to directly stimulate new investment. Only by facilitating new and creative forms of investment can communities continue to thrive.

For these reasons, we intend to change our focus while working with communities to strengthen and enhance the current program. Together we will explore ways in which we can more directly support local initiatives that contribute to economic development, job creation and new investment.

The objective is simple: to create and sustain strong and dynamic local economies. Our communities are Ontario's backbone. If they are strong, we are strong. Working together, we intend to see that that happens.

1350

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Hon Ms Ziemba: Earlier this year our government launched a $32.5-million labour market adjustment strategy to assist workers who are losing their jobs in the recession.

Members of the labour force who face cultural, language or other barriers are particularly vulnerable during times of economic slowdown. I am pleased to announce today that the Ministry of Citizenship will use more than $2 million from the new funds to ensure these vulnerable individuals are well served by the government plan.

To ensure the needs of immigrant and racial minority workers are properly addressed in plant closures, five Ministry of Citizenship areas will receive additional money.

First, we will increase our support for multicultural workplace programs, or MWP, run by boards of education, community colleges and community-based groups. The programs will work with labour-management adjustment committees set up in firms facing closure or layoffs. MWP staff will assist the adjustment committees to communicate in a culturally sensitive manner when providing career assessment, counselling and retraining services for a diverse workforce.

Second, we will commit funds to recruit and train more cultural interpreters to assist in the process. The cultural interpreters will help workers from various backgrounds communicate with counsellors and other providers of employment-related services.

Third, the ministry will increase funding to community organizations under its settlement and integration services program so they can meet the demand for employment-related services and language training. A specific portion of this funding will be allocated to community agencies participating in an innovative program, the worker advocate demonstration project, which is being established in partnership with the Ministry of Labour. This pilot program will focus on immigrant workers in unorganized workplaces affected by plant closures or downsizing. It will examine how community agencies can best support labour-management adjustment committees in these circumstances.

Fourth, we will keep community language and orientation classes attuned to changing needs. In co-operation with local educational institutions, we will prepare teachers to assess clients and provide instruction in such relevant skills as job search technique and coping with job loss. New learning resources will also be developed.

Fifth, Ontario Welcome House, a settlement service operated by the ministry in the Metro Toronto and Hamilton areas, will also co-operate with labour-management adjustment committees. Welcome House will develop an assistance package for displaced workers that will include employment counselling in a variety of languages, assessment of qualifications, referrals for certification and other services.

These initiatives are taken as a direct response to the recession, but they demonstrate this government's continuing commitment to removing barriers and to making sure that access to jobs is not affected by cultural, racial or linguistic background.

RESPONSES

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Offer: I would like to respond to the honourable Minister of Citizenship. This is another example, in large measure, of a restatement of initiatives and policies of the previous Liberal government. Today the minister had an opportunity to build upon our past policies, but she merely restated them. She had an opportunity to address the report entitled Access to Trades and Professions, which she had specifically promised to do, but today, nothing.

Her announcement speaks of the need to assist those who have lost jobs as a result of closures and layoffs. With respect to that we are in full agreement. But her government's budget certainly has not created one new job at a time when over 200,000 jobs have been lost in this province, when many firms are not just laying off but closing up. Today, again, there has been no action on the part of this government to address that particular issue.

As the minister knows, in this particular area, many of those jobs that she is alluding to are at minimum wage. The minister has made a very specific statement in terms of what her commitment is in the area of minimum wage, and again, she has done absolutely nothing in that area.

I think that in large measure the minister had an opportunity today to build upon past successes of the previous government. What does she do today? She merely restates, in large part, those particular initiatives. She has been characterized, and her government has been characterized, as following the three Rs, which really are recycle, restate and reannounce. Today she follows in those footsteps.

MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Caplan: I would like to respond to the statement regarding the 1991-92 PRIDE grants that the Minister of Municipal Affairs announced today.

First, I would suggest that there is some confusion, and I would ask that the minister get his act together in the future to make sure people can understand what in fact he is doing. He announced $13.4 million today, and previously $16.3 million, so the total is around $30 million. But we do not know if this is previously announced, recycled announcements, or whether in fact this is new money for communities across this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: It's brand-new money.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to hear the minister say this is an additional commitment, but I would like to know that we could have all of the facts on this, because this is just going to further confuse municipalities.

One of the concerns I have about this announcement is that while we are looking at significant grants to 69 municipalities under this provincial program, the numbers of communities that are suffering because of the recession, we see nothing here that is going to assist border communities particularly, as we are exporting jobs and dollars across the border. This minister has done nothing to assist municipalities in a positive way to deal with the economic implications of the fact that we have incentives in this province for people to take their business and their shopping out of the province.

These PRIDE grants could be far more innovative and supportive of communities across this province in stimulating the economy, as opposed to what the minister is doing in a very haphazard way. He says here, "In the future, we must ensure that local long-term job creation receives a high priority when PRIDE applications are reviewed." But the time for consideration of local long-term job creation is now. We are in a recession now. People are losing their jobs now. I would ask this minister to get his act together, to make sure people understand and know what he is doing, and to do something for the creation and stimulation of municipal economic interests.

Mr Elston: It is very interesting that this money is going out. We are always happy to see money going out to help local people undertake good works and help to revitalize the downtown.

From what we understand of the Minister of Community and Social Services, she alone has spent a good deal of money to revitalize the downtown of Toronto by engaging in, not some $56,000 worth of renovations in her office, but what we now understand to be about $120,000 worth of renovations. The downtown of Toronto is much better off for that. That is a real PRIDE project, and I wonder how much more money we will find out is spent when we get the answer to our order paper question.

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on his statement today.

It is fine to give this money, and we certainly appreciate that, as do the municipalities. I think the minister is going about it the wrong way, though. Our small businesses are suffering and there is no incentive for them, and they are going to have a hard time to match this money. The minister has to look at some way of looking after them before he starts giving this money away or there will be nobody asking for it. I think when the minister figures that out, he will be a lot better off.

I am also worried about the last sentence there, where the minister says, "Working together." The minister has been saying that for nine months now, and I have not seen anybody over there offering to work together, unless it is their way.

Mr Cousens: I would like to compliment the member for Grey for one of the best statements, because he has just touched on a real problem. We get talk and no action, and I know that it hit a nerve, because it was almost feeding time for the seals.

1400

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Cousens: I would like to comment briefly, if I could, on the statement by the Minister for Citizenship. It touches on one of the needs we have to have in our society: that we in Canada and Ontario want everyone within our society, from wherever they have come, now that they are here, to participate fully and actively in the workforce, in the community and wherever possible. I laud the efforts of the ministry to attempt something on this.

I realize as well the minister is having to do it because she has totally failed in the area of industry, trade and technology and she is having to pick up the slack. If the Premier's government had a fiscal plan for the future to help generate jobs and generate growth and employment and try to keep the jobs here in Ontario, it would not be necessary for the kind of programs she is initiating.

We need to do everything we can from the Legislature to do just that: have a fiscal policy that will encourage investment and job creation here in Ontario. If that is not going to happen, then we will have to have a fix-it program such as is being presented by the minister today. We are probably the most heavily taxed jurisdiction in North America. If we could get to work and start saving jobs and doing something to generate jobs, then we would not need such programs as this.

I have to leave a few minutes for my honourable friend the member for Mississauga South, but why is the minister not as well doing something about the bridging program? There is an opportunity here to be doing something certainly in York region. Catholic Community Service of York Region is doing an awful lot to help people get out of their homes through language assistance with therapy and just let them become themselves. We have to do more to help those new Canadians who are coming into our communities to be part of our community, to be integrated into them. I do not think the minister's government has really addressed these problems seriously.

Mrs Marland: The minister of everything has made what is a nothing statement in real essence in resolving what is a very serious problem in this province. It has nothing to do with who is out of work, but it has a lot to do with why so many people are out of work. We are talking about 250,000 jobs lost in the last 10 months in this province.

I really would be much more excited this afternoon had this minister been given money by the Treasurer whereby she could stand up and make announcements for those things that are needed in terms of human priorities within her own ministry. We have been asking for long-term care for vulnerable adults for a very long time in this House. When we are looking at the needs that fall within her ministry we are all very concerned about people with disabilities.

We are talking about blind people in Metropolitan Toronto who are still unsafe on our subway platforms, even 18 months after a terrible accident. Nothing has been done about that. We have not got problems resolved within this minister's own jurisdiction without her looking for other ways to spend money. I think the matter of human priorities here has been overlooked and this government should be looking to solve the problems instead of driving jobs out of Ontario and then pouring in a pittance of money after the fact.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr McGuinty: I have questions today for the Premier. They are connected with Ontario Hydro. First, will the Premier tell this House to whom he believes the directors of Ontario Hydro are responsible? Is the board responsible to the ratepayers of Ontario, who are shareholders, or to the government?

Hon Mr Rae: Generally speaking, I would say that it is a fair statement that a crown corporation like Ontario Hydro is responsible to the people of the province.

Mr McGuinty: My concern, given that response, lies with the proposed amendments to the Power Corporation Act and in particular the amendments which would absolve the directors from accountability as long as they do as they are told by this government.

This government has taken a number of steps recently which give rise to questions on the appropriate role for Ontario Hydro. While there is little doubt that efforts were necessary to assist the citizens of Elliot Lake and the North Shore and that this government had a particular responsibility in this regard, some policy concerns emerge because of the way the help has been delivered. In addition to the premium on uranium above world rates, Ontario Hydro has been required to ante up $65 million for regional economic development. Ministerial statements on Spruce Falls indicate that the government has plans for Hydro there as well, despite the fact that the Smoky Falls dam may never be approved under the environmental assessment process.

My question is this: Is it the Premier's intent to use Ontario Hydro as he would any government ministry, as a vehicle to achieve the NDP's socioeconomic objectives, rather than in the role for which Hydro was intended, to supply reliable power at cost?

Hon Mr Rae: I think this is a good chance to start a debate with the honourable member. I would be glad to do so because it is important for the member to look at the role that a utility like Ontario Hydro and other hydroelectric utilities play across the country.

Make some comparisons. Look at the way, for example, in which the province of Quebec has, through all the controversy, always seen Hydro-Québec as an important instrument of general economic policy in terms of serving the general interest of the people of Quebec.

I think if the member looks at other provinces -- British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan -- across the board, he will consistently find a recognition that there are broad social and economic responsibilities of a utility like Ontario Hydro.

If I can just respond directly to the one example that the member raised with respect to Elliot Lake, it is a fair statement and a fair observation to make that Ontario Hydro would not have entered into the contracts it entered into in 1975 had it not been for a deliberate decision by the Conservative government of the day with respect to the purchase of uranium in Ontario. When we took office, we discovered that the premium paid by previous governments, Liberal and Conservative, was costing the taxpayers of the province hundreds of millions of dollars and would have added up to a very substantial premium running into the billions of dollars over the next decade.

The decision we took was that Ontario Hydro, as a responsible corporate citizen, as a major purchaser of uranium from the town of Elliot Lake, has a special responsibility to the people of Elliot Lake. I believe Ontario Hydro has that responsibility, and that is precisely why we entered into the discussions we did and why we were able to arrive, on a very amicable basis I might add, with the board of Ontario Hydro at an agreement with respect to how the various costs associated with the changes at Elliot Lake would be shared throughout our society. That is exactly the approach we have taken.

Mr McGuinty: I note with interest the Premier's reference to the initiatives undertaken by the previous Conservative government. I am concerned with the initiatives taken by this government today. To be perfectly clear, let me state that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and my party believe this government has a direct responsibility to the people of Elliot Lake.

We do not believe, however, that the costs of same should be heaped on the backs of Hydro's ratepayers. This is effectively a hidden tax. The Premier must surely agree that economic diversification projects and community adjustments are the responsibility of government rather than of a utility to which almost all of Ontario electrical consumers must subscribe.

The Premier's directive to Ontario Hydro to underwrite the municipal debt and local development is contrary to the ratepayers' interests. Further, the proposed amendments to the Power Corporation Act absolve Hydro directors from any accountability if they follow such directions. My question is: Who was looking out for the interests of the Hydro ratepayers? Who was the voice for the individuals and businesses across this province who foot the bills?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say to the honourable member that you cannot separate out that Ontario Hydro is a corporate citizen which is publicly owned; it has responsibilities to the people whom it serves.

With respect to Elliot Lake, one cannot turn a blind eye to the fact, one cannot simply ignore the fact --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: If I have offended anyone, I apologize. I would say to the honourable member that I do not think that Ontario Hydro can walk away from its corporate responsibilities. I do not think we can walk away from our responsibilities as a government to the people of the province.

If you say, "To whom is Ontario Hydro responsible?" the answer is that Ontario Hydro is responsible to this Legislature because it is a creature of this Legislature. It is a publicly owned corporation created by the laws of this province and created by the laws of Ontario. Ontario Hydro would not exist if a Conservative government had not decided in 1905 that we were going to have a publicly owned utility in the province whose task would be to serve the best interests of the province and the best interests of the economy of the whole province. I believe on balance, in terms of what has happened at Elliot Lake, that this is exactly what we have done.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. We are in the final two days of this session of the Legislature and we have heard nothing from the minister on her plans to deal with the garbage gap in the greater Toronto area. She has not yet brought forward the necessary legislation to establish her public sector garbage authority; neither have we seen any legislation on the revised Environmental Assessment Act as promised.

On 3 April the minister assured the House that officials in her ministry would look at all the options to deal with the garbage gap. We would like the minister today to update the House on her specific plans to address the GTA garbage gap.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to have the opportunity to address that question because I certainly had hoped I would be able to return to this House and give very specific answers to those kinds of questions.

As I indicated some months ago, we have a team in place within the ministry looking at all possible contingencies in the event that there is, as it seems likely there will be, a shortfall between the closure of existing sites and the opening of new ones.

What we are finding, and I am glad to be able to share this with the House, is that we have, because the 3Rs have been accepted so well by the population and industries and institutions of this area -- and as the member will know, that has been the thrust of our waste management policy -- been able to extend the life, for example, of the Britannia site, which was slated to close this September, until March 1992.

But let me assure the member that plans to deal with any contingencies that should arise are well under way. I will be able to make them public as soon as possible. In the meantime, our efforts and the efforts of the waste reduction office to get serious about waste reduction and waste reuse are showing positive effects.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister has talked about a potential shortfall in space to place GTA garbage. Her own ministry officials are predicting that this shortfall could indeed be between nine months and as long a time as four years.

I have in my hand a cabinet submission dated 24 May 1991 signed by the Minister of the Environment. It outlines the government strategy to deal with what is an inevitable garbage gap which will occur in the greater Toronto area beginning in 1992. One component of that strategy is short-term transportation of waste to jurisdictions outside of the greater Toronto area.

Can the minister confirm that she intends to flip-flop on her policy announced on 2 April and approve the shipping of GTA waste outside of the region of the greater Toronto area? Indeed, will the minister name the communities to which she intends to ship GTA waste?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not have the cabinet submission in front of me, but I can certainly confirm that in looking, as I have always said we would, at all possible alternatives to make sure that there was in fact no garbage gap within the greater Toronto area, we have examined and are still examining a whole range of alternatives.

But let me tell the member there will not be a garbage gap if I can help it. The way in which we will make sure there is not a garbage gap is to really focus on reduction and reuse. That is the policy of this government, and the response to that policy has been beyond frankly what even I had expected it would be. In the event that we cannot close that gap, there will be measures available. I very gravely doubt whether they will need to include transportation, but all possible alternatives have been and are being examined.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister protests that she does not have the cabinet submission in front of her. I assume she read it because she signed it. I will remind her that a second component of the strategy that is contained in that document is approval for four expansions to existing landfill sites, two expansions to garbage dumps on Britannia Road in 1992 and 1996 and two expansions to the dump in the Keele Valley in 1994 and 1996.

Can the minister confirm to this House that it is her intention to expand Britannia by three million tons and Keele Valley by five million tons beyond their currently approved capacity and, contrary to the cabinet submission contents, which would give the minister absolute powers in addition to her emergency powers, will she commit that she will carry through on her election promises and subject these expansions to full environmental assessments?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think I made it plain in my first answer that I was canvassing all possible alternatives in the event that there was a gap between the closure of Keele Valley and the opening of new sites. But I am planning with optimism, to the effect that there need not be a gap and that gap will be as limited as it can possibly be. But as I have said from the beginning, it would be irresponsible of me not to plan for contingencies should those occur.

When the final decisions have been made about the range of options open to me, I can assure the member I will make them public as soon as I publicly can. Let me say to her again, I regret that I have not been able to share them with the House before now, but it would have been easy to have made a quick and simple solution. We want to make sure that whatever we decide to do is in the best interests of the environment because that is my bottom line.

1420

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Harris: My question is to the Premier. In less than one year in office his government has mortgaged our future by laying out a spending plan to double the total provincial debt. I would like to quote from a speech given by Premier McKenna when he was in Toronto in February, talking about provincial powers in the new Constitution.

Premier McKenna called for provincial governments to balance their budgets over the course of their term in office. He said he would "support a legislative requirement to produce a balanced budget over a government's term in office, so that no leader could buy popularity today with the dollars of tomorrow."

The average taxpayer and the average family are forced to balance their budgets. Municipalities and school boards must bring in balanced budgets so they do not mortgage the future to the next council or the next board. I would ask the Premier if he would support Mr McKenna's call for a legislative requirement for balanced budgets.

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I say to the honourable member, to be fair, he should understand, and I am sure he does, that Premier McKenna, in conjunction with most of the other provinces in the country, makes a very real distinction in his practice and in the work he does and in his budgets between operating and capital. In my discussions with Premier McKenna, he has made it very clear to me that when he is referring to the notion of a balance, he is referring to an operating balance. I say to the leader of the third party, in an ideal world we would like very much to be able to get our budget into an operating balance. I think that is an objective for our government that we would very much like to be able to reach.

Again I think the honourable member, if he looks at the situation, will recognize that the governments of which he was a member and of which he was a supporter were not always able to operate with an operating balance for the simple reason that in the early 1980s, they were facing a very serious recession. The recession we are facing today is even more serious and the extent of our social obligations is even greater, so it is going to be difficult. But I read Mr McKenna's speech very carefully. I have discussed it with him twice.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I think the objective of trying to reach a degree of balance on the operating side is a very good one. Do I think it helps it to be legislated? My own view is that does not help matters particularly, but it is certainly something we can discuss.

Mr Harris: The Premier is quite right that budgets have not all been balanced. Mr McKenna proffers the example that if it was legislated, it would help him, this government, former governments, current governments, future governments to resist the temptation to buy votes, which I suggest to the Premier he has engaged in on many occasions.

I am tabling with the clerk of the finance committee a copy of submissions that were made to our task force on the Ontario budget. The task force heard from taxpayers in Toronto, Hamilton, Peterborough, Ottawa, Cornwall, Kingston and London. The people I heard from agree with Mr McKenna: Governments must adopt a pay-as-you-go philosophy.

Lawrence Tapp of Lawson Mardon says: "The government says it's proud to be fighting the recession. I sincerely hope our children and grandchildren will be just as proud when they have to pay our bills." The London and District Construction Association: "Mr Laughren is creating the Great Wall of Ontario to keep out investment." The Mining Association of Canada: "The economic road ahead will be smoother if government budgets can soon be brought into closer balance."

These people understand the simple truth that high deficits ultimately result in higher taxes and lost jobs. How many jobs do we have to lose in this province before the Premier and his Treasurer and his government get the message that the people are trying to tell him?

Hon Mr Rae: Let's share these views with candour. I look forward to reading the report of the honourable member, but let me say to him, we spend less money in this province, and we will according to the projections we have put out for the next three years, on servicing the debt than the province of New Brunswick, than any other province with the exception of Alberta and British Columbia. Those are facts.

The fact of the matter is that the deficit is larger than any of us would like, but it is larger for a reason. It is a reason the member cannot ignore. We are encountering a very difficult recession and we have social obligations to the people of this province.

Unlike the federal party of which he is a member and his federal Prime Minister of whom he is a supporter, Brian Mulroney, we do not feel we can walk away from our responsibilities. That is the difference we have taken from the Mulroney government; that is the different approach we have taken. In this year, we are spending 11 cents on the revenue dollar to service the debt. The federal government is spending nearly 35 cents; other governments are spending more.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: If you put this in the perspective of having to deal with it, we have to understand that it is the recession that is our common enemy. Yes, we have taken on some extra debt in order to fight the recession but I think frankly, when you look at the choices that were facing us, we made the right choice.

Mr Harris: I agree with the Premier on one point, he is not and the finances of the province are not as bad as the federal government's yet. What we are trying to ensure is that this is not what happens in four or five or six or seven years, and that is the direction he is heading in. The public of this province are furious. Nobody I have talked to agrees that having our children pay for what we want today makes any sense at all.

Tomorrow, when the people against the NDP budget arrive at the front steps, the Premier will see again how angry they are. This bundle, just delivered by a page, represents nearly 4,000 names petitioning him to stop this budget. Yesterday, I presented petitions from the Hamilton area with over 5,000 names. The clerk of the finance committee tells me he has already received an unusually high number of calls from people wanting to appear before the committee. They are not happy with the NDP's tax-and-spend policy. They do not agree with it.

It is not too late for the Premier to change his mind. There are still taxes that can be stopped; there is still spending that can be cut. I ask the Premier sincerely, for the sake of the children, for the sake of the next generations, for the sake of the jobless, for the sake of this province, will he stand up in his place, ignore the backbenchers who cannot keep quiet in this House, admit he was wrong and lay out a new four-year plan with the help and the co-operation of all the people of this province and the opposition parties in a truly consultative way?

Hon Mr Rae: I say in response to the member that one of the hallmarks of this budget, and he may not agree with it, is that we also wanted to express a concern for today's children.

I do not deny the fact for a moment that the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves and the choices facing us have given rise to a debate. I think it is a very healthy debate. We have also put forward what we think is a realistic approach for the next several years. If we can reduce the deficit further, if there are other suggestions on how we can get there, I look forward to hearing what they are.

The choices that the honourable member is putting forward and the options he is putting forward are ones that I am prepared to consider in all good faith. I look forward to hearing his positive suggestions as to where we can cut, what programs he would stop and how we can turn things around. If he has a better way, if he has a better approach, we will certainly follow.

SPEAKERS' REMUNERATION

Mr Harris: Speaking of today's children, my second question is to the Minister of Health. During the month of May, the community advisory boards of the 10 provincial psychiatric hospitals held their annual conference in Whitby. Their keynote speaker was former leader of the NDP, Stephen Lewis. With over 10,000 children desperately waiting for mental health treatment, does the minister think it was appropriate to pay Mr Lewis $3,525 for a two-hour session?

Hon Ms Lankin: I am aware of the community advisory board conference that was held. The community advisory boards themselves structure the conference and plan out for the speakers. In fact, when I heard the amount, I was quite surprised. I thought that was a lot and I asked for some checking to be done. I found that for a number of speakers, whether it be Bill Davis or Larry Grossman, people of that calibre, that seems to be the going rate they charge. I myself think I would prefer to see money spent in a different way.

One of the things this draws to my attention is that, quite frankly, in ministries, the way money has been spent over the years has been without a lot of regard to these sorts of things. I think we should pull back on some of these, and as Chairman of Management Board, as opposed to Minister of Health, I intend to send a letter to all the ministries asking them to look at this, asking them to look at whether it is appropriate to do the kind of renting of hotel rooms that goes along with conferences, the kinds of extras that go into meetings, such as the food that is laid on. I think there are areas in which we can cut back and I think it is important for us to look at that.

1430

Mr Harris: I thank the minister. I know she was not the minister at the time.

Few would question that Mr Lewis is a noted commentator in many fields. She has referred to the going rate for noted commentators in their fields of expertise. The conference we are talking about, to quote the chairman of the Whitby advisory board, "was an essential forum for discussion of the issues that most significantly affect the mentally ill." According to a conference attendee, Mr Lewis told the group, "I am not an expert in the field." However, he said he had done considerable homework and acknowledged that the former Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, assisted him in this regard. He referred to himself, rather, as a friend of the present government.

Rather than paying $3,500 for Mr Lewis to parrot the views of the Minister of Health, would it not have made a lot more sense -- I ask her how many hours of treatment for children with mental health problems she could have provided with the $500 per hour she spent to pay Mr Lewis to express the views of the member for Ottawa Centre?

Hon Ms Lankin: The moral indignation, the outrage; let's get the facts straight again. I have said this to the leader of the third party a number of times. In the statements he makes it would be nice if there was a factual basis to them and if he was correct in those facts. Let's start at the beginning. What I said to him in response to his first question was that in fact this was not a decision made by the Ministry of Health; this was a decision made by the community advisory boards, an arm's-length group. They made this decision in their organizing committee. I question the decision of having a speaker at that rate of money. I do not think that is the best way to spend money. But the ministry did not make that decision, so the member should make that distinction when he is asking questions.

With respect to the fact that Mr Lewis is a friend of this government, what a surprise. I think quite frankly there are a lot of people out there of very high calibre and Mr Lewis is one of them. Mr Lewis has spoken at many conferences, whether it be business societies, all sorts of conferences --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- he has a contribution to make.

Interjection.

Hon Ms Lankin: Well, we can talk about the United Nations. We can talk about his background.

What I have said in response to the member is that this and other points he raises with respect to expenditures are valid points and that quite frankly I am undertaking to do something about it. That is his answer.

Mr Harris: I appreciate the fact that the minister agrees with me on these points of waste that I bring up and that she will attempt to do something about it. I wish we had that same commitment from the Premier and the other members of cabinet. I appreciate that.

I would ask if the minister would investigate this: a non-expert in the field of health, somebody who in his speech said he was there as a friend of the government, that he knew nothing about mental health and that he got his notes from the Minister of Health herself. I would like her to investigate and find out -- because the government paid the full shot of this, as she knows, the report to the Ministry of Health -- if it was these advisory people thinking, "Who can we get as a guest speaker to talk about mental health?" out of the blue, without any prompting, without anything from the NDP government, who thought: "Stephen Lewis, he's the expert. Let's get him." Will she investigate that and find out how his name, for $3,500, came to the front for this conference in the first place?

Hon Ms Lankin: I find the member outrageous at times. Perhaps we want to divide and separate the rhetoric and the silliness from the issue of whether or not at conferences where community people come together to talk about the role of community in the health system, the role of laypeople from our community and consumers, people who do not have to be experts on the system from the inside; they are experts because they are recipients of the services. The fact that those people in their conference choose to have a speaker who costs $3,500 is an issue that is worth reviewing, whether the budget should include that kind of latitude.

The other issues the member raised are red herrings and not relevant to the point.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Offer: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment on the Britannia landfill site and on the shocking cabinet revelations that were just made known to the Legislature. The minister will know that this is a problem in Britannia which in fact -- -

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I realize we are having a pleasant time this afternoon, but it would be even more pleasant for me if I could hear the question being posed by a member who is seated right nearby. If the members on both sides of the House, particularly at the end of the chamber, could just resist the temptation to have conversations across the floor, we could get on with question period.

Mr Offer: I ended by talking about shocking cabinet revelations and a problem which the minister has created. She will know that this is a matter for which there could have been, and was to be, an environmental assessment hearing, that an interim site in the Peel area would already have been selected, but she effectively put a stop to that last November.

This is a problem that she has created. It is one that she cannot provide a solution to. She will be aware that the Britannia site was established in 1980 through an agreement between the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga. The agreement stated, "When the site reaches capacity, currently estimated to be March of 1992, the site will close and be turned into a recreational site for use by the residents of Mississauga."

Does she plan on using her emergency powers to overrule this agreement reached between the region of Peel and the city in order to expand the site to take garbage from other regions of the GTA, without a full environmental assessment hearing and without any concern to the environmental and health repercussions such action will result in?

Hon Mrs Grier: On 1 October, I inherited a situation that had been brewing for 10 years, a situation which is continually being referred to as a crisis of waste management within the GTA. The solution that had been proposed was to open up new landfill sites without an environmental assessment process. What this government said it would do and what this government has done is to say that no new landfill site will be opened without an environmental assessment process. The other thing that we have done --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have managed to hit axiom 1 again, the parliamentary axiom that there will always be questions we do not want to hear and there will be responses we do not want to hear. But every person will have the right to pose a question and every responder will have the right to be heard with the response. Right now I cannot hear the response.

Hon Mrs Grier: What we have done in response to that crisis is to aggressively move forward with waste reduction and reuse, and to put in place a corporation that is looking for long-term sites under the environmental assessment process.

As I have said to this House on many occasions, it would not be responsible of me not to plan, in the event that there is a gap which could be, as the member says, for nine months or perhaps for two years, in the event there is a gap between the closure of existing sites and the opening of new ones. I have indeed looked at the possibility of expanding existing sites as a way of filling that gap, but I am optimistic that with the best efforts of everyone within the GTA that gap can be made as short as possible.

1440

Mr Sorbara: There are going to be supplementaries as well that the Minister of the Environment is not going to want to hear. Unfortunately, she cannot rely on what she says she inherited on 1 October when she was sworn in as minister. Everyone who follows this House and follows politics in Ontario, knows that the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, during several years in this Parliament as an opposition member, was one of the most informed and one of the most outspoken critics on environmental issues this Legislature has ever seen. She knew the problems then, as she knows them now, and the hallmark of her ability to understand environmental issues was her defence of the importance of public input into decision-making.

That very same member, as a minister, has signed a cabinet submission in which she recommends to her cabinet colleagues that legislation be drafted which will include, and I am quoting, "provisions which will enable the minister to overcome impediments to the proposed strategy." That means get around having a public hearing in the event that she decides on her own to expand Britannia and the Keele landfill site. She uses those very words, "overcome impediments."

Her promise, and the promise of her Premier -- and I know, Mr Speaker, you are getting anxious --

The Speaker: I am waiting for the interrogative part.

Mr Sorbara: The promise was that there would be no new landfill site and no expansion without a full hearing. That is what the Premier said and that is what the now minister said. Can the minister confirm she now supports a cabinet submission in which she is going to give herself the very powers she condemned when she was the opposition critic in this very House?

Hon Mrs Grier: I appreciate having the member's endorsement of my environmental commitment. Let me assure him that it is undiminished, but as Minister of the Environment, as minister responsible for the greater Toronto area, it would not be my responsibility to threaten the health --

Mr Sorbara: You signed it as Minister of the Environment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: One more day. I would appreciate it very much if members would come to order.

I would ask all members, if they ask questions and would like a response, then they need to listen for the response. If you would like a response, I would ask the minister then to be given the courtesy of giving a response and that she in turn be succinct with her reply.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me set the members' minds at rest. I certainly signed that cabinet submission, and if the member has it in front of him, may I direct him to the key issue. The key issue of that submission is, how can the province manage the crisis that will occur when existing landfill capacity in the GTA expires before new capacity is available? I did not create that crisis, but I am going to solve that crisis and I am going to manage that crisis. That is my responsibility.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mrs Marland: My question is also to the minister responsible for the greater Toronto area. It concerns the future of the Toronto Islands. The minister's responsibility is also for the environment; therefore she must be concerned about preserving the designated park land on the Toronto Islands. However, the report prepared for the government by the former New Democratic MPP, Richard Johnston, recommends that the Toronto Islands residential community not only continue to exist but actually be expanded.

The fact that the land will remain in public ownership and that the housing will not be exchanged for profit is no excuse for continuing to have a residential community on designated park land. Does the minister support the designated park land use for residential development on the Toronto Islands?

Hon Mrs Grier: Mr Speaker, I would like to refer that question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question, and I say to the member that she will know the history of the Toronto Islands issue as most people in this area do. Through the appointment of Richard Johnston a few months ago, we are trying to work with the city and the region as well as the islanders to find a solution that accepts the principle we need to preserve park land. But there is also a community on the island and an issue that has not been resolved or dealt with by previous governments, and we are committed to protecting that community on the Toronto Islands.

Mrs Marland: First of all, I am disappointed that the Minister of the Environment would defer the question, because that was the thrust of this question; and second, not only am I disappointed, I am amazed that the Minister of Housing does not know the history of this subject, because if he did, he would know there was a limit on the existing housing to the year 2005.

However, I will try to help the minister. The Minister of Natural Resources, sitting beside him on Monday this week, announced a ban on any development on the Oak Ridges moraine that is not consistent with eight key principles of environmental protections and preservation. As well, people have had land expropriated in this province so that the province's conservation authorities can exercise their mandate to control flooding and erosion and conserve our natural resources.

I ask the minister, are there two sets of government rules, one for the people who live on the Toronto Islands, and one for everyone else? Is it his government's policy that residential development does not belong on park land, and if so, does his government plan to follow Mr Johnston's recommendations with respect to preserving and expanding the Toronto Islands community and build affordable housing on all the parks in the greater Toronto area?

Hon Mr Cooke: The last part of the member's commentary is rather silly, but there already is an island community, and the member knows that.

The principle this government is following is that there is an island community. That community exists. We are not talking about new development; we want to protect that island community. I would say that Mr Grossman did too when he represented that area, and the party over there. We are not taking a different position; we are looking at the issues that are there now and a need to protect the island community, just as Larry Grossman did when he was leader of the Conservative Party.

1450

The Speaker: The Minister of Community and Social Services has the response to a question asked earlier by the leader of the third party.

COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES SPENDING

Hon Ms Akande: I would like to provide the members with some information in response to the question posed yesterday by the leader of the third party. He brought to the attention of the House an anonymous letter, an internal ministry memo, which provided evidence that management of my ministry's centre region office has made some questionable decisions about expenditures.

Upon leaving the House, I asked the officials of my ministry to examine the decisions. The matter which seems to have generated the most most interest is the booking of rooms at the SkyDome for a two-day meeting of the ministry's central region management group. The meeting in question was to have involved management staff. There would be 15 people, but there was no confirmation of who would have required overnight accommodation. The meeting rooms would have cost $700 for the two days and the hotel rooms would have cost $90 per night for each of those who had chosen to stay overnight, although we have no confirmation about who would have stayed overnight. Therefore we have no final costs.

The ministry is a large, decentralized organization. However, I share the concern that holding a meeting in a room overlooking a baseball game is indeed extravagant. I do beg your indulgence, Mr Speaker, in order to give him the response.

The Speaker: I ask the minister to try to conclude her remarks quickly.

Hon Ms Akande: The rooms at the SkyDome have been cancelled. The central region management group will hold its meeting in a government facility. The member has also raised a question about other things within that letter. If he wishes, I am prepared to respond to them.

Mr Harris: I have a brief supplementary. I thank the minister for doing the responsible, prudent thing. I regret very much that the minister and the Premier had the same letter I had for five days and sat on it, did nothing. It had to be brought to her attention here in the House even though she had that information available to her. Until it was brought up here, nothing was done.

Second, the minister says she does not know how many rooms would have been used. Nine rooms were booked and confirmed, so whether they slept there or not, that is what the government would pay for. I think we know that.

Third, we also discovered there were two ball games involved, not one. I did not realize there would be an afternoon game on in the room. There was no room for the table because I guess everybody there was watching the ball game.

The bottom line is this: Why did she not act on the letter she received at the same time I did? Why did we have to bring it up in the House to get her attention? How many more extravagant expenditures by her senior management are going on while our programs for the needy, the homeless and children are falling short?

Hon Ms Akande: Actually, I had certainly not received the letter for five days. As a matter of fact, we had to look for the it. The letter was received in my office only yesterday. It had not yet reached my desk.

Second, I really did not know how many ball games there were, because they were of no interest to me.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This is a peculiar test of my hearing. Could the members come to order. If you folks can relax, then we can try again. The minister with a few more brief remarks.

Hon Ms Akande: Third, there were no confirmations. My staff has checked with the hotel. I have no final costs. It does not matter; not one of those rooms should have been booked and that is why they were cancelled. In terms of future intentions and looking at the allegation that many of these meetings are held outside of the ministry -- we checked on that and the meetings -- the percentage of days or time our meeting rooms are used in the Macdonald Block is 85% to 95% during regular office hours.

The other issue is that this meeting will be held within office time. I have to stress too that there are steps in place in order to review the practices in all regions.

VITAL STATISTICS REGISTRATION

Mr McClelland: I have a question today for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and hope the answer we will get today will not be like the answer we got on Monday, where she said when the Liberal government was in power it did not bring in any consumer legislation.

For the record, I want the minister to understand that in the five years the Liberal government was in power, 43 separate pieces of consumer protection legislation were brought into effect in this province. The minister should be aware of that; she should have a handle on her portfolio.

Both members' offices and the general public have been having terrible experiences in trying to obtain birth certificates. The reduction and the level of service has been incredible over the past few months. They cannot get birth certificates; they cannot get certified copies of records from the registrar general's office. Cheques are being cashed and no certificates are being delivered literally for months on end. It is taking so long to obtain birth certificates in some cases that people in small towns in Ontario are having to hire lawyers to obtain birth certificates.

Given her familiarity with all aspects of her portfolio now, I want to ask the minister what specific programs she is prepared to do to clean up the mess with respect to the service she is supposed to be providing for the people in this province so that they can get the documents they need very urgently in some situations? When is the minister going to clean up the mess? When is she going to get a handle on the management of her ministry?

Hon Ms Churley: My first question from my critic is a very tough one. As I said yesterday, because he alluded to the question asked the other day, it turned out that the information was so incorrect that I had trouble understanding where the question was coming from.

However, on to the registration situation. I quite agree with the member; there are serious problems. As the member knows, the previous Liberal government made a determination to move the office to Thunder Bay. We have now completed that move. However, many of the staff who worked here in Toronto did not move. There are a number of reasons why we are having problems. I am very concerned about them and I am working daily on putting in more phone lines; setting up management teams; and looking at the problems created by a massive move to a new system. In Toronto part of the problem was long lineups. We are finding out that in Thunder Bay it is telephones. We are now looking at and reviewing and working very hard to catch up on the backlog that was created from the move.

Mr McClelland: I understand that the minister is saying the Liberal government made a decision to move the offices to Thunder Bay. That is entirely correct, but when the move was undertaken the minister was responsible for the management of that. I have phone messages here from people who have phoned the minister's offices in the last 24 hours. The staff is telling them the problems encountered with the registrar general's office in Thunder Bay are a result of the Liberal government.

The minister should at least come clean and accept responsibility for the management of her ministry and what is taking place up there. I appreciate that she has directed her staff to accept responsibility for the her responsibilities as minister.

I can only assume that perhaps part of the problem she is having is with respect to the OPP and RCMP investigation that is taking place. There is a joint criminal investigation, as the minister knows, of the office of the registrar general. We know that fraudulent birth certificates have been issued from the registrar general's office. Criminal charges have been laid against some civil servants.

When is the minister going to advise the public of Ontario that she is going to get that problem straightened out, get this operation in some sort of shape, have some kind of management brought to bear on it so that the people of Ontario can get, at no personal expense to themselves -- they should not have to hire lawyers -- the service that ought to be provided for them for simply a nominal fee? It is the minister's responsibility to provide that service. When is she going to clean it up and deal with the problems in her ministry?

1500

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I am not blaming the Liberal government in this case for the problems. What I would like to say is that the office has now been moved. Literally millions and millions of documents have been moved. We are in the process of setting up more phone lines and looking at the problems that have been created from setting up a brand new office with mostly brand-new staff.

The backlog, unfortunately, that was created by that move is a serious problem. The other problem of course is that in the summer there is a seasonal high for births, people travelling, marriages, so on top of the backlog, I agree with you, we have got a problem right now. I am hoping that by the end of the summer we will have the backlog cleared up. As I said, we are hiring extra people, we are putting in students over the summer to help deal with the backlog and we are putting in extra phones. We are dealing with it the best way we can at this time.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her remarks, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly will. I just want to say to the member that I sympathize with the people out there having these problems and I apologize for the inconvenience. I want to assure them and the member that I am working very hard to clear this problem up.

LAGOON CITY

Mr McLean: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. We have had a search out for her and we do not appear to be able to find her anywhere. I thought perhaps if she is watching the monitor she could come in right away, but failing the minister's being here, I will have to direct my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and it will be appropriately answered, I am sure. The fact is I raised the issue with regard to Lagoon City last week in this House. The minister has had letters from the residents there back to 25 January 1991 and they have had no reply. They even sent another letter on 24 May and they have not had a reply from the minister.

This morning I got a fax from the municipality, which on 23 January 1991 wrote to the minister. The matter was referred and they thought they would have an answer in February 1991. Since then, they have had a communication from the ministry dated 13 June that there would be a response by the end of June.

There are 50 people in the gallery here today from Lagoon City who want an answer. They want to meet with the minister. The minister has not returned their communications. They want to meet with her, the council wants a meeting with her.

The Speaker: And your question?

Mr McLean: Will the Minister of Municipal Affairs see that the Minister of the Environment meets with the township and the residents?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am informed by the Minister of Natural Resources that he would be able to give a more complete answer to the question than I could.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is an important issue and I appreciate the question. I will certainly refer the question of meeting with the Minister of the Environment to her, but in the meantime I should point out to the member, if he is not aware, that the proposed development is in the very early stages of approval and, as he knows, it relates to class 2 wetlands. The Ministry of Natural Resources asked the proponents to prepare a biological report on the impacts of the proposed development and the mitigation measures that would be taken for the surrounding area. This is very important, as the member knows. It is important to protect class 2 wetlands.

MINISTER'S OFFICE

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday in question period I asked the Minister of Community and Social Services about the costs of a rug and other renovations done to her office. As Hansard will reveal, she undertook to this House to provide that information today, the total cost and the extent of the renovations. We have not had an answer to that question and I want to bring to the Speaker's attention that the undertaking has not so far been honoured.

Hon Ms Akande: The member is quite right. I have in fact ordered that this be done. We will have the response in the Orders and Notices before the House rises and the response to the question. I have asked for the information and we will have the response to that for the member before the House rises tomorrow.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for bringing that matter to my attention and trust he has received the response.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I asked a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services, she responded; I asked a supplementary, she responded. As a result of that question, she took some further action to cancel the conference at the SkyDome, and then today she wished to get back up and respond some more.

I bring this up on the heels of the point of order of the member for St George-St David. We have had a practice in this House that if a minister takes a question under advisement and says, "I don't know the answer but I will try to find out and I will report back to the House when I have it," normally in those cases we allow the minister to respond during question period, and a supplementary is allowed. I suggest that is appropriate. If the minister today had risen in response to the question of the member for St George-St David, I think that would have made sense, and a supplementary would have been provided. But I do not think it is fair to answer a question, answer a supplementary and then, when the minister finds out more information, come back in -- or when she has taken a new decision, which really would be an announcement -- and use the time of question period for that.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to consider that when it happens again. I would ask ministers to think about whether they are giving an answer to a question or whether they have a statement they wish to make, in which case we would be happy to receive it as part of a statement or by way of the media, a press conference. We heard everything the minister said today in response to the media on her way in and out of cabinet. I do not think it is an appropriate use of question period time to come back with a new answer with different information or a new decision that is taken and disrupt the flow of question period.

I offer that for your suggestion and for the minister's suggestion.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, I appreciate his drawing this matter to my attention. He will know there is nothing out of order. The Speaker is placed in a very awkward position when cabinet ministers indicate they have a response to a question asked previously.

I certainly ask all members of the House whether perhaps they could find a more effective way of communicating information among themselves; either that or make some alteration to the standing orders. But the orders as they stand, and the precedents in this House, allow for the varied way in which things have developed the last two days, as the member has outlined to us. If there is to be some change, either it should be in the form of changes to the standing orders or indeed ministers and those members who originally asked the questions perhaps could consult with each other prior to question period to determine whether that information could be put in written form or put on the order paper, or some way of handling it other than utilizing the time of question period.

Quite frankly, what happens when a cabinet minister stands up is that then one backbench government member loses a place in rotation for questions. I am as sensitive to that as anyone, but there is not a great deal of latitude with respect to the judgement I must make.

1510

Mr Harris: Further to the point of facilitating the business of the House, can I proffer a couple more comments? I do not think it needs a rule change. For instance, tomorrow, if the Minister of Community and Social Services says, "I would like to respond some more to the question that was raised by the member for Nipissing," I think it is within your power, Mr Speaker, to say: "No. You had your chance. You answered. Sorry, you're out of order." I think it is that simple. I think it could have been done today and I would encourage you to do it tomorrow if it happens again.

The Speaker: To the leader of the third party, I took the time to check Hansard during question period and noted that there was an undertaking by the minister to respond the next day, and this is in fact what she asked to do.

The member does, however, raise a point: it is the responsibility of the Speaker to recognize members, and the Speaker can choose not to recognize someone. That is entirely a part of the responsibility of this job.

I take the member's comments seriously. I take it that probably the House leaders will endeavour, as they always do, to find a smooth and efficient way to conduct the business of the House.

Hon Ms Akande: I believe Hansard will bear evidence that I promised the leader of the third party a response to the question. Now I am questioning why that response would be inappropriate today.

The Speaker: I have ruled on this matter. I indicated, I believe, just a few moments ago, that I had indeed checked Hansard. There was an undertaking made by you to provide a response today and in fact that is what you did. Therefore, there is nothing out of order.

PETITIONS

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY OF YORK REGION

Mr Sorbara: I have a petition signed by hundreds and hundreds of people in York region which reads as follows:

"We demand that the Children's Aid Society of York Region receive its fair share of funding. The Ministry of Community and Social Services must provide a minimum budget of $8.5 million in 1991. The Children's Aid Society of York Region is dangerously underfunded and must receive adequate funding now.

"Premier Bob Rae is responsible if something happens to our children."

I am glad the Minister of Community and Social Services is here. I regret that she is leaving the chamber.

This petition was prepared and organized by the Concerned Citizens Coalition of York region, who are desperately concerned about the actions taken by the Minister of Community and Social Services on children's aid society services in my community and throughout York region.

HOUSING POLICY

Mrs Marland: I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontario government policy requires the city of Mississauga to remove obstacles to residential intensification, designate developed areas and sites for intensified housing, identify intensification opportunities and new development and facilitate housing intensification; and

"Whereas the provincial government's housing intensification policy does not permit restrictions to residential intensification such as location, age of dwelling and zoning;

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

"We do not want residential intensification in our area. We feel the impact would harm the fabric of our community."

I am happy to add my name to this petition.

SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr Huget: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by 205 people, including members of the Canadian Street Rod Association and other automobile enthusiasts. They request that vehicles that are defined as street rods be included as a distinct section in the Ontario Insurance Act. I have affixed my signature to this petition.

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mr Phillips: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario signed by 75 people. It says:

"Yes, I demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disenfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk.

"Mr Rae, your government must act now. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

I have affixed my signature.

BUDGET

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by over 4,000 people. I am affixing my signature to it as well as I speak. It says:

"Whereas the NDP budget of 29 April 1991 takes the province of Ontario 180 degrees in the wrong direction; and

"Whereas the only way to end this recession and save jobs in Ontario is to cut taxes and reduce government spending;

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

"Stop this budget."

AMALGAMATION OF TOWNSHIPS

Mr Drainville: I have a petition signed by a quite a few people from my riding. They have addressed this to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the council of the county of Victoria has voted to accept a recommendation from the steering committee on county government to amalgamate the village of Fenelon Falls with the township of Fenelon; and

"Whereas the residents and taxpayers of Fenelon Falls and Fenelon township were not given the opportunity for public review and comment on the recommendations being made before they were voted upon by county council,

"We, the undersigned residents of Fenelon township and Fenelon Falls, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"The recommendation for amalgamation between the village of Fenelon Falls and the township of Fenelon not be accepted until such time as the residents of both jurisdictions have had the opportunity to provide formal comment on, and acceptance of, the proposal in a municipal referendum, possibly as part of the 1991 municipal elections."

I have affixed my signature to this.

SPECIAL MOTOR VEHICLES

Mr Rizzo: I have a petition sponsored by the Canadian Street Rod Association. It has over 600 signatures and reads as follows:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas special motor vehicles are not specifically included in the Ontario highway act;

"Whereas special motor vehicles are not specifically included in the Ontario Insurance Act;

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

"The Canadian Street Rod Association, its membership and other concerned car enthusiasts request that the special motor vehicles be included as a distinct section in the Ontario highway act and the Ontario Insurance Act."

I have affixed my signature to it and concur with it.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 12th report.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(14), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr77, Township of Chandos Act, 1991;

Bill Pr82, Town of Oakville Act, 1991.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr70, Royal Conservatory of Music Act, 1991.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DUES ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES COTISATIONS DE L'ONTARIO MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

Ms Lankin moved first reading of Bill 135, An Act to provide for the Payment of Physicians' Dues and Other Amounts to the Ontario Medical Association.

Mme Lankin propose la première lecture du projet de loi 135, Loi prévoyant le paiement des cotisations des médecins et d'autres montants à l'Ontario Medical Association.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Ms Lankin: The purpose of this legislation is to fulfil the government's commitment made in the recently signed agreement between the government and the Ontario Medical Association. It will create a mechanism by which the OMA will collect membership dues, or their equivalents, from all practising physicians in Ontario, with certain specific exemptions.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, it is my understanding that we have a vote now on Bill 121.

1527

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion for second reading of Bill 121, An Act to revise the law related to Residential Rent Regulation, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M.Cooke pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi121, Loi révisant les lois relatives à la réglementation des loyers d'habitation mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 80

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Brown, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cleary, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Farnan, Fawcett, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McLeod, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., North, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Scott, Silipo, Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 16

Arnott, Carr, Cousens, Eves, Harris, Jackson, Jordan, Marland, McLean, Murdoch, B., Poirier, Runciman, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité permanent des affaires gouvernementales.

Hon Miss Martel: Mr Speaker, I would ask for the consent of the House to call the order for three private bills, Pr77, Pr82 and Pr70.

Agreed to.

ROYAL CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC ACT, 1991

Mr Silipo moved second reading of Bill Pr70, An Act respecting The Royal Conservatory of Music.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWNSHIP OF CHANDOS ACT, 1991

Mr Drainville moved second reading of Bill Pr77, An Act respecting the Corporation of the Township of Chandos.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE ACT, 1991

Mr Carr moved second reading of Bill Pr82, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

MUNICIPAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT DES LOIS CONCERNANT DES MUNICIPALITÉS

Mr Ferguson, on behalf of Mr Cooke, moved second reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities.

M.Ferguson, au nom de M.Cooke, propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 122, Loi portant modification de certaines lois concernant les municipalités.

Mr Ferguson: This bill, which I am introducing today for second reading, will give effect to a number of unrelated minor amendments to various pieces of municipal legislation, primarily the Municipal Act and the acts governing restructured upper-tier municipalities.

As the minister indicated on 10 June in his initial statement, at the time of the first reading, these amendments were discussed with the municipal affairs critics of both opposition parties prior to their introduction.

A number of amendments have been requested by various municipalities throughout the province of Ontario. I do want to acknowledge the co-operative efforts put forth by both critics of the official opposition as well as the Conservative Party, the member for Oriole and the member for Grey on this matter so that this item could be dealt with expeditiously.

Mr B. Murdoch: In our party we are glad to work on this bill with the other two parties and on behalf of the municipalities that requested a lot of these changes.

There was one change in there that we had some concern with, and that was the fox bounties. But we felt that maybe we had grown out of the need to hunt fox in Ontario on a bounty system right now, so we let that one go and had no problem with that either.

Again, I just want to reiterate that we worked with the other two parties and we wanted to help the municipalities out. This is why we are supporting this bill.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Le projet de loi devra passer à l'étape de troisième lecture.

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for unanimous consent of the House to deal with third reading of the bill at this time as well.

Agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

La motion de troisième lecture est également adoptée.

1540

STANDING ORDERS

Miss Martel moved government notice of motion number 22:

That standing order 104(g) be amended by inserting after "agencies;" in the 10th line "and to review the intended appointments of persons to agencies, boards and commissions and of directors to corporations in which the crown in right of Ontario is a majority shareholder according to the following procedures:

1. A minister of the crown shall lay on the table a certificate stating that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Premier, as the case may be, intends to appoint a person to an agency, board or commission or to the board of directors of a corporation, together with a copy of the position description and a summary of the person's qualifications, which documents shall be deemed to be referred to the committee.

2. Upon receipt of a certificate as referred to in paragraph 1, the clerk of the committee shall distribute to each member of the subcommittee on committee business a list of intended appointees in respect of whom a certificate has been received.

3. The subcommittee shall meet at its own initiative or at the request of the committee to select from among the intended appointees referred to in paragraph 1, those intended appointees the committee will review. Each member of the subcommittee, other than the Chair, may choose one or more of the intended appointees for review from the certificates provided by the clerk of the committee.

4. Following a meeting of the subcommittee called for the purpose of selecting intended appointees for review, at which an intended appointee was not selected for review, or following 30 calendar days from the tabling of the certificate pursuant to paragraph 1 during which no subcommittee meeting for the purpose of selecting intended appointees for review has taken place, whichever shall come first, a report shall be deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House, that the committee will not review the intended appointee.

5. The subcommittee shall report to the committee on the intended appointees for review. Upon receiving the report, the committee shall determine a date for the review of the intended appointees as selected by the members of the subcommittee. Such date shall be no earlier than seven calendar days following the receipt of the report of the subcommittee.

6. Upon notice from the clerk of the committee that an intended appointment has been selected for review, the minister who recommended the appointment shall provide to the committee a copy of the intended appointee's application, a copy of his or her resume, a description of the responsibilities of the position, a detailed description of the candidate search process and a statement of the criteria by which the intended appointee was chosen.

7. At any meeting of the committee called for the purpose of reviewing intended appointees, the Chair shall divide the time available for review so that an equal amount of time will be spent reviewing the selections for review made by each of the members of the subcommittee.

8. Where a subcommittee member has chosen more than one intended appointee for review, the member shall apportion the time available to review his or her selections between the appointees. The subcommittee member may choose to defer the consideration of one or more of the intended appointees that the member has chosen for review for up to 14 calendar days until a future meeting of the committee at which intended appointees are to be reviewed so long as the consideration of the intended appointee has not previously been deferred.

9. In reviewing an intended appointee, the committee shall not call as a witness any person other than the intended appointee.

10. The committee shall determine whether or not it concurs in an intended appointment at the conclusion of the meeting held to review the appointment unless any member requests that the committee defer its determination for up to seven calendar days to a future meeting of the committee. In its report, the committee shall state whether or not it concurs in the intended appointments and may state its reasons therefor.

11. The committee shall present its report to the House on its review of intended appointments at the earliest opportunity following the meeting at which its findings have been made and such report shall be deemed to be adopted by the House. If the House is not meeting at the time, the committee shall have authority to release its report by depositing a copy of it with the Clerk of the Assembly and upon receipt of the report by the Clerk the report shall be deemed to be adopted by the House.

12. If a report in respect of an intended appointee is not made within 30 calendar days following the day on which the intended appointee was selected for review, a report shall be deemed to have been made by the committee and adopted by the House, that the committee will not review the intended appointee.

13. Where consideration of an intended appointee is deferred in accordance with paragraph 8, the time allowed for the making of the report as established in paragraph 12 shall be extended by 14 calendar days.

14. The clerk of the committee shall notify in writing the minister who recommended the appointment of any decision of the committee and the subcommittee on committee business respecting the appointment."

This standing order shall come into effect on 28 June 1991.

Hon Miss Martel: If I might, I have some remarks to make on this.

Following the Premier's statement during the last fall sitting concerning the opening up of the public appointments process to review by a standing committee of the Legislature, a temporary change to the standing orders was implemented to allow the standing committee on government agencies to conduct reviews of intended appointees.

This temporary change to the standing orders was sunset for 27 June 1991 and the standing committee on government agencies was asked to report to the House its recommendations concerning the best procedures to allow the committee to carry out its mandate. This report has now been received.

The motion presently before the House is intended to establish a mechanism for the ongoing review of public appointments. The changes that the government is putting forward reflect the intentions of the government as to the scope and nature of the standing committee process. They also reflect some of the very practical process considerations that have come to light during the very brief experience that the standing committee on government agencies has had to date in reviewing intended political appointments.

Establishing a set of standing orders to deal with reviewing public appointments is not a simple task, as a number of considerations need to be balanced. In particular, the government's need to be able to proceed in an expeditious manner to appoint members of the public to positions of responsibility on government agencies, boards and commissions needs to be balanced with the need to provide the standing committee members with sufficient time to conduct the reviews that are necessary.

The majority report of the standing committee on government agencies has made a number of recommendations with respect to possible changes to the standing orders concerning the review of political appointments. These form the basis for the changes I am moving today on behalf of the government.

The dissenting recommendations expressed by the Liberal and Progressive Conservative members of the standing committee have proven more difficult to accommodate. Most of these recommendations deal with the terms of reference of the committee and not with the process through which the present terms of reference are carried out. I will be addressing the reasons why most of the changes to the terms of reference to the standing committee made by the opposition parties cannot be accommodated. However, where the recommendations of the opposition did focus on the actual procedures of the committee and the time available to conduct reviews, I have attempted to respond to these concerns.

The changes to the standing orders that are being proposed reflect the concerns of the standing committee members in the following ways:

First, the standing committee will have greater flexibility in integrating its role in reviewing intended appointees with its role in reviewing agencies by allowing the committee complete discretion to determine how much of its sitting time will be spent reviewing intended appointees and how much of its time will be spent reviewing government agencies.

The time to be spent in reviewing any intended appointee will be limited to a shorter period of time than is presently the case, by virtue of the fact that on any day that intended appointees are reviewed, the time available will be split between consideration of intended appointees selected for review by all of the three parties.

The standing committee is now empowered, where the committee believes it appropriate, to determine its recommendations with respect to an intended appointee at the conclusion of its interview with the intended appointee, instead of having to wait until the next meeting of the committee.

The subcommittee on committee business will now have greater flexibility to determine when it will meet to determine its selections for review. The language of the committee's report concerning intended appointees who are not reviewed has been changed to reflect the fact that the committee has not reviewed the appointee, rather than indicating that the committee has no recommendation concerning the candidate.

In situations where a number of significant appointees are put forward by the government at the same time, in addition to being able to allocate more of its time to appointment review if it desires, the committee members will also have the ability to defer consideration of one or more intended appointees for up to two weeks to accommodate the committee's review of a larger number of intended appointees from any particular group.

A number of requests for changes to the standing orders by the opposition members of the committee in its dissenting reports will not be accommodated. The opposition has requested that the committee obtain information on candidates who applied for, but were not selected for appointments. This proposal would create considerable difficulty in attracting quality candidates to put their names forward for consideration whenever the potential candidate is concerned about (a) his or her interest in the position and (b) that this interest remain confidential unless chosen.

Further, there is no possible way a committee of members could devote the time necessary to become a hiring committee for all appointments presently made to government agencies, boards and commissions. The committee's role is to review government appointments, to determine whether the candidate chosen by the government is qualified for the position he or she is being appointed to. I do not believe information regarding other potential candidates or their backgrounds is necessary for the committee to carry out this role.

Second, the opposition has requested that submissions be received from third parties as to the appropriateness of intended appointees. Where people have information they believe is relevant in determining whether an intended appointee is qualified, there is nothing to prevent these persons from bringing this information forward via committee members to the attention of the committee in its use of questioning the intended appointee. But the government does not believe the public is going to be well served by having other people come in and subject an appointee to possible character assassination or attack.

Third, the opposition has requested opposition control over the committee review process and veto power over appointments. The request for majority control of the committee is not realistic. It is a matter of law that the Lieutenant Governor in Council or the Lieutenant Governor, on the advice of the Premier, is authorized by statute to make appointments. The dissenting report of the committee states that, "As we are the members who will be lending our names to the approval of such appointees, we feel that it is inappropriate for the Premier to shift on to this committee the burden of accountability."

The dissenting report from the committee belies the fact that the government is responsible for the appointments made. The government will reap the political benefits of wise appointments and the political costs of foolish ones. While the government wishes to receive the advice of the standing committee on the qualifications of intended appointees and will treat this advice with great deference, it is essential that the government must retain its responsibility for the public appointments that are made.

It is to be expected that the opposition will condemn the government for failure to adopt some of the recommendations the opposition has put forward. It can only be pointed out that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives, when they were in power provincially, implemented the kind of accountability features to the appointment process this government has. The idea that if either of the two opposition parties were in power they would implement the recommendations they have come forward with is simply not supported by the records of the past.

It is also fully expected that when the opposition members rise to speak on the matter they will also argue that the measures taken by the government to clean up the appointments process do nothing to change the situation that has existed in the province for many years. Again, I do not believe this to be the case. The government, like any other government, will want to make sure the people it appoints to public office will pursue policies consistent with those of the government of the day. In this sense, the appointments process will continue to have partisan points to it.

However, the government is determined to make a clear break from the historical practices of the past whereby the political appointments process was used as a mechanism for strengthening the political party in power at the expense of the public. The government is determined the political appointments process will not be driven by the need for requirements of patronage.

We believe the standing order changes proposed today will accomplish the goal, and I look forward to the debate that will ensue.

1550

Mr Grandmaître: I must bring my dissenting vote on this motion, as expected. As the member just pointed out, the Liberals and the Conservatives very rarely vote together. This time, the members of both parties agreed that the system implemented on 20 December with great fanfare -- I would like to quote from the speech from the throne which addresses the new responsibilities of the standing committee on government agencies:

"The public has a right to see appointments made by a fair process, a process the men and women of Ontario can trust. By ensuring public access to all details of appointments and by peeling away some of the secrecy surrounding the process, I believe we can ensure a fairer selection of the best possible candidates."

I was pleased when I was appointed to the committee on government agencies, because I think our committee has a great role to play, especially with the added responsibilities given by the Premier of this province on 20 December. But I must be honest, I think those added responsibilities given to the committee are a smokescreen. It is a fait accompli. I do not believe for a minute, and I do not think any member of this House believes, that we have changed the process.

These appointments are still made by the Office of the Premier, the Premier himself, and also by a person paid by the government to search for people, mostly NDP people. I would say 75% of the them are New Democrats. So if the Premier or members of this House think for a minute that the patronage system is over, it is far from being over. They are simply continuing with the patronage process that existed in the past.

I agree that some of the appointments in the past by the Tories and the Liberals seemed very much to be patronage appointments and I think the system needed to be changed, but the process has not changed. We are still being told by the Premier's office, through orders in council, "This is our nominee," but we only learn about it through the newspapers. Twenty four hours after the cabinet has approved the order in council, we read in the newspapers that Mr So-and-So or Ms So-and-So has been appointed to the Hydro commission, to committees or agencies. I think it is a very unfair system.

The committee is given one name. We do not know what the search process was all about. We know that person has been appointed. I have been told some people in this province have applied for such an appointment and have never received a letter of acknowledgement. We have been trying to find out how this search process works. We have not been told yet how many people applied for this job or this nomination, or how they found out. A lot of people received phone calls from the Premier's office, or maybe from ministers, wanting such a person to sit on those ABCs. I think it is a very unfair system; it needed amendments. We have tried through the leadership of our chairperson to reach a compromise, but I can understand the members from the government side sitting on our committee; they will never vote against an appointee, especially a person nominated by the Premier. I challenged them to vote against the Premier's appointment. Not one did it.

It proves they are given specific orders when they come into our committee to vote for that person. Everybody is given 10 minutes to ask questions. It really looks good, but it is a fait accompli. We do not have a veto. We can simply ask a few frivolous questions of the members because we do not know these people, we only go by their curriculum vitae. Some people have no experience whatsoever and they may be good people. It is very unfair for these people to appear before our committee to be submitted to our questioning because we do not know these people. We can only go by their CV.

It is very unfair. Last week this lady had to drive more than 200 miles to appear before a committee and she was giving her time, not only to her municipality but to this province. I think it is very unfair to put these people through this kind of charade.

We will vote against this motion for the simple reason that we do not feel at ease sitting on this committee; we feel like puppets. They have the numbers. We are outvoted and I think we should have at least fair representation, equal representation on the committee, not a veto. I do not think we should have a veto. Some people on the committee feel that we should, but I do not think so. I think that is very unfair. After all, we do have a government and I think it is up to that government to choose its own people and live with the decision it has made. It is very unfair to hide behind our committee and say 6 months, 12 months or 18 months down the road: "Hey, this is not a good candidate and you are to blame. It is your choice." It puts us in a very unfair situation.

We are not allowed to call witnesses who do know these intended nominees. We are not allowed to do so. It took us close to five months to obtain a total list of all nominees or appointments in Ontario which was supposed to be distributed to municipalities, libraries and other public offices.

If the government thinks it has opened the process, it is totally wrong because even people nominated to sit on ABCs know that the process is a fraud. I have spoken to these people and they know the system is a fraud.

I know another colleague of mine would like to address motion 22, so again I would like to remind the members of this House to be a little fair. We would accept some amendments because I think the government is on the right track. I think we should have a word to say in these nominations. I agree with the government. But at the present time the process is not there. It is not working. It seems like it is working, but we do not have the tools to work with, and I hope the government will change its mind and bring about changes that are acceptable to all three parties.

1600

Mr Runciman: As members may or may not know, I chair the standing committee on government agencies, and I am honoured to chair the committee. I served on the committee in the past as a member and thoroughly enjoyed my tenure as a member of that committee.

It has been long looked upon as a non-partisan committee of this House, given the responsibilities to review the operations of agencies, boards and commissions of the government and make recommendations in respect to how they could be improved and perhaps even sunsetted. There are a variety of ways in which I believe the agencies committee over the years has made a positive contribution to the operations of government in this province.

The member for Ottawa East mentioned that in respect to the changes announced by the Premier and the review process it indeed was a positive step that members of the Legislature were going to have some opportunity for review and input into the order-in-council appointments of the government. I would say it has been an improvement, but modest, indeed.

As Chair of the committee, I make an effort to be non-partisan in my approach to the deliberations of the committee, and I am going to do that as best I can during this debate as well. But my major concern, when we look at the operations of the committee and how it has functioned over the past couple of months, is the fact that we have been performing a function which I think most members of the opposition parties, if not the government parties' representation on the committee, feel, to a significant degree, to be meaningless, that we are not really having an impact, and that if, indeed, the opportunity is there to thoroughly investigate the credentials of an intended appointee, we do not have the tools to do the job necessary.

As was pointed out by the previous speaker, for example, we do not have the right -- and that has not been changed in the permanent standing order -- to call witnesses, and I think that is an extremely important element to explore, and I am sure some of the other speakers will, as we carry on this debate. I can think of Mr Eliesen, the recent appointee as the chair of Ontario Hydro, in some quarters a very controversial appointment, or Michael Cassidy, again to the Ontario Hydro board of directors, or we had a gentleman appointed as a vice-chair of the Workers' Compensation Board with a significant labour history and a close alliance with one of the House leader's staff persons.

We had some representations made to us, but we did not have the opportunity to have people come in as witnesses to express their concerns. In the Eliesen case, for example, there were -- I think, Energy Probe -- a number of groups that had very real concerns about his appointment. But, again, we did not have the authorization, the right, under the temporary standing order, and do not have it under this permanent standing order, to call witnesses to hear individuals in this province who may have differing views in respect to the qualifications of the individual recommended by the government of the day.

My primary concern is, what are we accomplishing by taking up the time of this committee every week to deal with these appointments, while at the same time we are totally neglecting the original responsibility and mandate of the standing committee on government agencies, and that is to review the operations of agencies, boards and commissions?

I know there is some reference to window dressing and perhaps there has to be some degree of truth to that when you look at the time assigned to this committee for summer sittings. Originally there was going to be no time at all assigned to the committee. Now we have been allotted, I believe, three days during the summer. If you look at the enormous number of order-in-council appointments and the time required to review even a small percentage of those, there is no realistic way in which the committee, especially allotted only three days during the summer recess, can even touch on a significant part of those intended appointees, and the government realizes that.

The steering committee of the committee suggested that we simply let this temporary standing order lapse and let the government go on, as governments in the past have, with its order-in-council appointments being passed by cabinet every Wednesday, and that is all there is to it. Bring in a permanent standing order for a full and lengthy debate in the fall.

The government, for reasons known best to the House leader and perhaps some others within her group of advisers, decided this was not what it wanted to do. They wanted to have the message out that this was, indeed, performing a useful function, when in reality we do not have any time to do it and the government did not want to assign us any time to do it.

What the committee has decided and the subcommittee has supported is that this summer we are not even going to go through that charade. We are going to take the time we have, the minimum amount of time we have, to review three agencies in this province, one selected by each party. We will get back to our original mandate and hopefully do something where we can feel we are making a meaningful contribution to the operations of this government and to the taxpayers of Ontario.

All of us have to decide how we are going to participate or not participate in this process. As Chairman, obviously I am going to continue to participate in the process and be as non-partisan as I can under the circumstances, but I have significant concerns about the whole question of time. I know that time is a critical factor for all of us in this House and I think probably more so for members of the opposition. Some of us have two or three critic areas in committees and small numbers over here, so that we have, perhaps, more pressures on our time than government backbenchers. I do not know if I am being fair about that or not. I am only drawing on my own experiences, having served as a government backbencher in a majority government as well.

When you have to devote X number of hours per week to this process, you wonder if you are serving your own constituents and the people of Ontario well by going through this exercise. I have reached the conclusion that I am not doing that, and I would rather see my time put to productive use in many other ways.

This is a joke to some of the members of the government party, but like so many initiatives of this government, when there are some concerns expressed all we get is jocularity and hee-haws from the crowd across the floor.

There are some of us on the opposition side who are here to try and make a positive contribution. I do not believe, and I suspect the members of the opposition parties do not believe, that we are having an opportunity to do that. In fact, we would be much more effective if we simply ignored this standing order, simply ignored this process and devoted our time solely to a review of agencies, boards and commissions. Conform with our original mandate.

There is no way we can do the job adequately, given these additional responsibilities, in any event. But if we are going to try to do a bit of this and a bit of that, it is futile at best. My recommendation to my own colleagues and to the official opposition as well has been to simply not call for any intended appointees, simply ignore this process and move on to our original mandate and do something, as I said before, that is going to be meaningful.

Since we have not seen any significant moves in respect to this permanent standing order, no significant changes from the temporary one, I still stand by it. That is the way we should proceed. It is regrettable. I think with a few modest changes to the temporary standing order the process could have become much more acceptable and been much more effective and one in which most of us in opposition could have lived with, but the government has seen fit to, for the most part, stick with what they originally introduced. That is not satisfactory from my perspective, but if, indeed, we continue to proceed this way, as Chairman I will have to continue to conduct business in respect to the review of intended appointees.

Again I want to say that I am disappointed in the permanent standing order that has been brought forward. I am hopeful that indeed if we have to operate under this standing order we simply, as opposition members, do not take up the opportunity to review intended appointees when we really cannot conduct any meaningful review.

1610

Mr McGuinty: I think it is worth our while to begin by considering the problem for which this is the proposed solution. The problem was that the political appointments process, that system, has come into disrepute. It is now being seen as one where cronies are being rewarded for past service of some kind which favoured the party in power. The perception surrounding the appointments process, not only in this province but elsewhere in the country, was such that it has contributed to the cynicism which constitutes a major obstacle in the way of government today. Viewed in the context of that tremendous cynicism, it was important that this problem surrounding the political appointments process be addressed.

I have made reference to the matter that there is a perception that the appointments process is being abused, but I think it is fair to say that it has in fact been abused. Nevertheless, the process that is presently in place, even the new process put in place by this government, remains open to abuse. I think the best solution -- this was referred to by the Premier in his announcement -- is to establish a process which will ensure we get the best available person for the job.

I just want to quote from the Premier's original announcement. He said on 10 December 1990: "The public has a right to see appointments made by a fair process, a process the men and women of Ontario can trust. By ensuring public access to all details of appointments and by peeling away some of the secrecy surrounding the process, I believe we can ensure fairer selection of the best possible candidates." I would underline and emphasize the use of the word "best" by the Premier. That is a laudable objective.

Let's take a look at the solution that has been put forward and see whether we have accomplished the objective: to ensure that we get the best person for the job. Let's take a look at the constraints under which our committee is operating. First of all, and this has been referred to by the member for Ottawa East, we have no power of veto. The question we have to ask ourselves is, how can we purport to be exercising any real function if the Premier refuses to grant us a right of veto? Talk about a perception problem. Let's consider this: If all the members sitting on the committee decided they were not in favour of the intended appointment, the Premier nevertheless retains the power to proceed with that appointment.

The next problem we have is one of unequal representation on the committee. Again, if the government's sincere interest lies in ensuring that the best person gets the job, we should have equal representation. I guess it is all in how you define "the best person." My definition would be an objective one and it would require input of all of the parties equally represented on the committee. The Premier's definition apparently is a different one. It is a subjective one. His definition is that the best person is the one who is the best person in his eyes and in the eyes of his members on the committee.

The third constraint we have to deal with daily is that we have no right to call witnesses. If we are to ensure that we are getting the best person for the job, we should be able to obtain references. That is not only through viva voce evidence but through documentation, letters of reference, through written submissions. We should ask ourselves this: Would any of us seriously consider having someone to assume a responsible position without having the benefit of obtaining references? Some of the positions we are considering are extremely responsible, in dealing with the administration of large and complicated government agencies. Surely we would want, and indeed we have an obligation, to obtain a second opinion.

The fourth constraint under which we operate is the fact that we have no information regarding the antecedent screening process. We are not told and cannot obtain information as regards who else was a prospect for the job. In short, we cannot tell if the best possible candidate is sitting in front of us at the time we are asking questions of him or her. When we ask the questions of the candidates, in all fairness to them they simply do not have the answer.

The information we are provided with regarding the screening process is at best sketchy. It is simply insufficient to allow us to determine or assess the integrity of the screening process.

The other constraint we are operating under is one of time. Given the tremendous volume of appointments the Premier is making, given the fact that our committee meets only once a week and that our committee is also responsible for the weighty task of reviewing agencies, boards and commissions, given all of those time constraints, we are effectively prevented from properly dealing with the appointments we seek to review, let alone all those that we simply do not have time to deal with.

Next let's look at the net result. I think that is important. We have dealt with 53 separate appointments. It is noteworthy that all of those have been concurred in as a result of the vote being carried by the government members: 53 appointments, 53 votes cast, 6 members sitting on the government side; that is potentially 318 votes that could have been cast. We should ask ourselves how many of those votes were cast against the appointment, put forward by the Premier's office, by members sitting on the government side? The answer is none.

Also in terms of the net result, I think it is significant that a number of ministers in this House, and the media, continue to refer to the intended appointments as if they were already appointed. That is merely a reflection of the fact that the process is really no more than pro forma in nature. Earlier it was referred to by the member for Ottawa East as a fait accompli.

Has anything really changed? Objectively speaking, definitely not. The government simply has not instituted a process that has enabled our committee to get the best person for the job. What is particularly disconcerting is the insidious aspect of this, that many people have been fooled into believing some significant changes have been made.

The analogy I like to use is that on 10 December 1990, I believe it was, when the Premier announced this process, he effectively said he was going to send our committee members to the moon. However, all he gave us was an airplane. We can fly that airplane out of sight and we can give the illusion that we have travelled to the moon, but the bottom line is that we simply do not have the tools, the vehicle, to pursue an analogy, to get where we intend to go.

If the Premier wanted to continue with the old process, he should have simply done so, as was his right. I think it is unfair and inappropriate for the Premier to lead us into believing that this appointments process, the review process., has somehow been improved.

I want to concur with the Chair's comments about the sense of frustration we as members of the official opposition feel sitting on the committee. I feel as if I am involved in some exercise in futility. I am disappointed at not having the tools to do the job and in all honesty, I do not feel I am serving my time here well or my constituents well.

1620

We have put forward an alternative and that should be highlighted. That was based on findings contained in a report called Directions: Review of Ontario's Regulatory Agencies -- Overview, prepared by Robert Macauley. In that report he recommended the creation of a council for administrative agencies that would operate at arm's length from the government. Its function would be to seek out, interview and assess potential candidates and bring an element of impartiality and objectivity into the government appointments process.

The fact that the members at this stage are not prepared to move this process out of range of the government, to set it at arm's length, is most telling as to their real desire in terms of dealing with government appointments. It is also significant that the Conservatives and the Liberals, who are not by natural inclination bedfellows, have joined together in presenting our minority report and expressing tremendous frustration and disappointment with the process.

Given the situation connected with this committee and our inability to carry out our task, I think our time would be much better spent devoting ourselves entirely to the committee's original mandate of reviewing agencies, boards and commissions. It should be quite apparent, not only from my tone but from my words here today, that I am unable to support this motion. Thank you.

Mr B. Murdoch: When I first got elected and knew I was going to be coming to Toronto, I thought that somewhere along the line I would be able to contribute to everything that goes on here, not knowing that sometimes when you sit in opposition you are almost held at ransom for what you can do.

But in a way, after being here for some time I had the privilege and honour of being able to sit on this committee; I had a chance to fill in for my friend Mr McLean, the member for Simcoe, when he was on another committee. It certainly did not take long to figure out what was going on in this committee and what the Premier has been trying to do. I had been there for only a day or two when I found out that this whole committee was a sham and a farce. It just is not doing what someone thought it was going to do. I do not believe one appointment that has been turned down has been sent down to this committee by the Premier. If there has been I would like to be corrected on that, but I do not think so.

The reason is that this committee is set up all wrong. This government got elected, so it decides: "We're going to make some mistakes so maybe we'd better find some scapegoats right away. Let's set a up committee, but we'll overload it with our people." It is just amazing. They want to find a scapegoat. They stand up here day after day and can never take the blame themselves. It is always the federal government or the past Liberals, and they even go back in to say it is the past Conservatives. They cannot seem to figure out that they are in there to govern now. They have been here for a while now and some of them even sat here other years and should know better how things work. They always seem to want to stand up and blame somebody else.

Now they set up this committee and say: "We're going to have a fair process here. We're going to pick people for commissions and boards in a fair way." But what is fair about this? As I say, I do not know of anyone who has been turned down, but there have been some votes. One of the only ways this committee might be able to work is if it has a fair representation from all three parties on there. I am sure they can be non-partisan on a committee like this and if you do not think it can --

Interjection.

Mr B. Murdoch: I know they laugh over there, but if they want a fair way then it will be. Or do they just want to put on their own political hacks the way they said the other governments did? That is what they are doing. If they want a fair way, they will put people from each party on there and make them even and then they might get some fair representation.

One of the other things that really bothered me about the committee is that they say, "You know, we'll vote against somebody if we don't think they're any good." They are going to vote against somebody the Premier has sent to them. That is what they say. But the days I sat there they interviewed some of these people. A lot of these people drive from a long way to be interviewed too, thinking this is an easy thing and knowing they are not going to get too much pay for the job they are being interviewed for. They go through gruelling questions that a lot of times they should not be asked by this process, maybe, but they are interviewed the one day and normally they are voted on the next day or the day after that.

The days I sat in there, the people from the government side who voted on them were not the same ones that interviewed them. How did they have any way of knowing whether these were good appointments or not? If they were not there to interview them, they should have stood up and said, "Look, I didn't interview these people; I don't think I should vote for them," and let the majority of the people from whatever party sitting there that day on the committee vote. If they want to be really fair, that is they way it should be, but it happened all the time I was in there.

As far as I am concerned, this whole process is a waste of the ratepayers' money. Our people out there are paying for this process and not getting their money's worth. If this government wants to govern, if this is the way it is set up, it should be picking out the people for these agencies. If that is how they want to do it, they should do it. If they pick the wrong people, then they should take the flak for it. If they turns out to be wrong they should not try to blame it on a committee and say, "Well, the committee picked them; we didn't do that."

If they want to be a government and truly govern, then they are going to have to stand on their own two feet at some time and start to govern, rather than saying, "Oh, well, we're going to do this and we're going to do that." Then they have this big idea and say, "We're going to work with everybody," and that is fine; that is a good point, but saying, "As long as you do it our way," is a little tough, I say to them over there. If they want to work with everybody, then they had better start listening to some of the other parties or it will never work. This is one committee that shows it is not working. As I say, they should show me one person who has been turned down. Why did they not just pick them themselves? Why go all through this work? Why have all these people come in here and be grilled by some of the other members from some of the other parties? Why do they not just do their jobs, as they have been elected to do? That is one of the jobs they were elected to do, putting people on these commissions.

They will say, "What do we want to do?" I have heard the comments coming from the other side, saying, "What would you do?" As I said, they should make a fair committee with the same number from their party, from our party and from the Liberal Party. That way they will get a fair representation of all Ontario people. They have to remember that between the parties it is 100% of the people who got us elected, so to make it really fair that is what they have to do or cut the farce out. It really bothers me that we have to go through this charade. They are spending a lot of people's money on something that is a charade. If they want to make it fair, they should have fair representation from all parties or take the jobs themselves and do what they are supposed to do.

Mr Stockwell: Being a member of the committee, I have spent some time discussing with it exactly what would be a better process to use. What I have felt about the committee is not exactly a secret. To take us back about six or seven months, I suppose, when this was originally debated in this House some time in December, I suggested that this government was setting up a process that was nothing more than window dressing; it was window dressing to appease the general public. By appeasing the general public they were allowing it to believe there is a perception in the Ontario government today that certain cabinet appointments made in the past would be scrutinized by a non-partisan, fair, evenhanded committee.

1630

Mr Elston: Tripartisan.

Mr Stockwell: Tripartisan, yes; I am sorry -- an evenhanded, fair committee that would make reasonable recommendations to the House for the adoption of the motions that pass in cabinet. What has come of this exercise? Simply this: Never during this entire process has a government representative on this committee voted against a single recommendation by the cabinet, not once. In the debate last December, I suggested exactly that. I said you will not see a member of this government vote against a single request made by the cabinet, and I was accurate. I made a bet that they would not do that. No one would take the bet, and in hindsight it was probably very intelligent, because I think it was as clear as glass.

The process that is taking place today, the process we are involved in, is merely a process to protect the government -- and I repeat that, to protect this government -- from the charges it levelled against other governments. It is clearly that. That is exactly what we are facing. This government was absolutely paranoid about the patronage appointments system because it had been so vocal, and in some respects I think accurate, about the process that was in place. When they got into power their suggestion was that we had to clean up this process. In cleaning up the process, they struck a committee with a majority of members from the government side who vote in favour of every single recommendation that comes from the cabinet.

The cabinet recommendations on the major appointments are very partisan. On the major appointments in the past that would get publicity, the ones that the public would sit up and take notice of, they have been very partisan, if not NDP card-carrying working people, clearly people with that thought pattern, that feeling, the same socialistic trend, and they were appointed. Granted there is no debate on some of them. There is some tokenism involved. There are some Conservatives and Liberals. Those people are appointed who sort of protect their positioning.

The same argument could be made at the federal level when they appointed Stephen Lewis to the United Nations. If they honestly believed the federal government was appointing partisan individuals, they would simply stand up and say, "Stephen Lewis was appointed, so we are clean." The argument this government makes is, "We appointed Andy Brandt," and that in some way relieves it of responsibility.

It is truly a joke to suggest for a moment that the system has been changed dramatically. It has not been changed dramatically. We still have government making appointments and we have six hacks from the government side, six backbenchers who sit around on the government side and who endorse every single appointment. I plead to the backbenchers of this government. Even they can see through this window-dressing. Even they can understand how they are being used. Their vote is simply being used. They are nothing more than parrots and they sit there. When the boss crows, those people just mime whatever the heck they said: "Oh, this must be a good person. My briefing notes said so. I am going to support them."

Mr B. Murdoch: I wasn't even here to interview them.

Mr Stockwell: That is the other one. When the member for Grey, who was attending this committee, at a point during the proceedings noted -- it was a very decisive action he took at the time by leaving the committee -- very clearly that when they voted on one of the appointments, a substantial number of members from the government side had changed during from meeting to meeting, and they had not even known the individual who was interviewed, for goodness' sake. They did not interview them. They did not hear the debate, yet they still voted for the recommendation from cabinet. Now if that does not tell you, Mr Speaker, that they get their marching orders and they are not supposed to vote against any of these orders in cabinet, then with all due respect, I think you are slightly naïve.

Mr Hope: They take notes.

Mr Stockwell: The suggestion is they take notes. Then they have got to pass the notes around. I think the very clear indication of exactly how useless this committee is, is the government members themselves, the arm-holders, the strings that pull their arms up. They themselves have suggested that we not bother going through this exercise for the summer. They have agreed. They have said, "No, I don't think we should bother interviewing candidates for the summer. We are wasting taxpayers' money. We are wasting taxpayers' time. We are wasting taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars." They themselves, who I know do not believe in this process, have said, "We shouldn't bother going through this charade for the summer." Here we have a slew of appointments that were handed down just today to the committee by the cabinet who will not be interviewed over the summer, and this government's backbenchers who sit on the committee say, "That's fine, because we know full well the committee is a colossal waste of time, effort and money."

The other point is that it becomes rather depressing to sit through meeting after meeting, hearing the same questions and the same typical responses, knowing full well at the beginning of the interview, during the middle of the interview and at the end of the interview that this person has got the job. It is very depressing to go through a process like that, because it renders the committee and its members totally useless. It actually takes up a tremendous amount of time that could have been productively spent serving their constituents. It takes up a tremendous amount of their time and involves them in a classic charade.

The real shame of it all is that this government is doing this for optics. Purely and simply, it is optics, public perception. When they go back to the public -- maybe the public will still be naïve about this in four years -- they are going to stand up, and I can hear them saying it on the platform. They will not be able to talk about An Agenda for People, because that will be totally landfilled by that point. They will want to talk about all the great processes and procedures they have instituted to change government workings, and this is what they are going to point to, this public perception that they have cleaned up the patronage system.

I charge this government with not cleaning up the public patronage system. I charge it with entering into a public relations scam to try to convince the people of this province that patronage no longer exists, which is pure hokum.

I cannot imagine this government sitting idly by while a previous government member -- I do not know the riding. It was in Scarborough; Mr Johnston. I forget his riding. If the Conservatives or Liberals had done this, they would have screamed blue murder and said: "Patronage, patronage, patronage. We must change the system because it does not work." Yet when they do it, it is okay. Does that not bother them? Do they not think the policies of this government were slightly hypocritical in the past, when on the one hand they can complain about the patronage system, and on the other hand enter into it as boldly and obviously as any party has done in the past?

If this government continues with this charade, our party has taken the position that it will no longer continue with this charade. Our party has taken the position that if they are going to make these kinds of appointments, as I said in December, they should make them. I am very prepared to have it make them. In fact, I am not so opposed to governments making appointments to boards and commissions. I accept the fact that the Liberals did it. That is what happens when you get elected. I accept the fact that the Tories did it. That is what happens when you get elected. I also accept the fact that the government of the day is allowed to do this.

They should not pretend. They should not try to kid the folks that they have any system in place that is any different than that of the previous governments, because my friends do not. They are no better and they are no worse. I think what the they should do, rather than continue on with this charade, is fess up and admit the fact that patronage lives in Ontario, that it lives in socialism and that it lives in their government.

1640

Mr Silipo: I was actually going to wait until a few more members from the opposition parties had spoken, but that passionate speech by the member for Etobicoke West has just inspired me to get up at this moment.

As a member of this committee and as the government whip on the committee, I have been following this debate with great interest. It is, I guess, at least the third time that we have gone through this, a couple of times at the committee and now here in the House.

I think it is important, because the members of the opposition have put before us their views on this matter very clearly, that we make a couple of observations from this side of the House relating to the whole point of this process, how it has worked, or I suppose not worked from the opposition perspective, and what really the process is all about.

It seems to me that whether the opposition likes to admit this or not, it is clear that something significant has happened as a result of this process. In my view, the process is much more open than it has ever been in the past and I think there are a couple of things with respect to this that need to be pointed out.

First of all, there is a great deal more information going out to the public with respect to the whole range of appointments that are available. I think some members across the floor referred to the information package that is now available, but members of this House will no doubt have received this book, the guide that lists all the different agencies, boards and commissions for which there are vacancies.

This is now available not only in each member's constituency office but in many public places including every public library --

Interjections.

Mr Silipo: I would love to be able to hear what people are saying across the floor and speak at the same time, but I just cannot do it.

People should not underestimate the importance of having this information out there. I know, for one, as the local member in my area, that a number of people have come forward; they have heard that this process is there and that this information is available. People have come into my office asking about the various positions. As a result of that, I think there are clearly more people aware of this process and more people applying for the various positions than has ever been the case in the past. I think that access to information means there is a great more access to the various positions. I think the fact we have that process of being able to apply is the first point.

The second point is that having the committee in place and being aware that all the appointments that are made by particular ministers or the Premier's office are subject to the public scrutiny of the committee process means, I think, that the credibility of the process is enhanced and the credibility of the people who are put forward is enhanced. It means that every appointment that comes through, being subject to the kind of scrutiny that people know it may be subject to, means that people are going to be that much more careful to ensure that the people who come forward, as intended appointees, are the best people possible.

Mr Stockwell: How many of you voted against?

Mr Silipo: I will get to that. The member asked how many we voted against and I will address that in a minute. I think it is useful to take a look for a moment at how well the process has worked. Clearly, from the opposition perspective, it has not worked very well. My own sense is that while there certainly have been some problems with it, generally speaking it has not worked too badly. I would say it has worked rather well for some of the reasons I have identified before.

It is interesting to look at this question of how government members have voted on the appointments. It is true and there is no denying it; I do not think there have been any appointments on which there has been a vote against by the government members. There may have been one or two where individual members may have voted against it, I do not know, but clearly it has not been more than one or two. Equally important, I think, is to take note of the fact that, with the exception of the member for Etobicoke West, who has voted against every appointment that has come forward, every single one of them, there have been very few appointments which members of the opposition have voted against. What does that tell us?

Mr Grandmaître: He didn't bother.

Mr Silipo: Well, if he did not bother, that was not the point that was made at the committee, and I have been there most of the time.

I think it is important, therefore, to note that there have been very few times when there has been strong disagreement, or indeed disagreement of any kind, between the government members and the opposition members on the appointments. What does that tell us? Perhaps it tells us that generally speaking, the people who have come forward have been good people that have been put forward, and we have found them to be generally acceptable. In the cases where there has been disagreement, I am not sure that any process we would have had in place would have gotten us around that disagreement.

Mr Stockwell: So what is the point?

Mr Silipo: The point, I think, is --

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Will you take your seat for a minute. I know there are a number of questions you may wish to raise, but I remind you that they are raised during your time when you are standing. To ask questions across the floor to the member engaged in debate is not accepted.

Mr Stockwell: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.

Mr Silipo: Actually I was just about to get to what is the point of the whole process, because that, I think, is what is at the nub of this whole discussion. The point of this whole process, it seems to me, is not to have a committee of this Legislature engaged in the process of appointing people to various agencies, boards and commissions; the point of this process is to continue the right of government, through its ministers, to make appointments and to have those appointments subject to review by a committee of this Legislature.

I know the members of the opposition have chosen to continue to fudge that one and to pretend that what we intended was to give them the right to appoint, as opposed to giving all of us members of that committee the right to review those appointments. There is a very clear difference in my mind, and I am sure there is a very clear difference in their minds with respect to that, although they have chosen to conveniently forget that.

I think there is therefore a clear difference. If the role of the committee is to review the appointments, it is not to become an interviewing committee in terms of hiring and appointing; it is to ensure that the people who come forward are indeed appropriate for the job they have been appointed to. It is only in cases where the committee feels they are not appropriate for those positions that the committee then has the responsibility and the right to say no.

The day may very well come when the committee says no, and I know the question of veto has been suggested and has been raised a number of times, although it was interesting to hear from some of the members opposite that there are now at least two different views about that, some saying they want the veto and some saying they do not want the veto.

Be that as it may, the issue is that if there are people who are found to be not appropriate for those positions, and if the committee as a whole, or by majority decision, recommends that those not happen, I would be quite surprised if the Premier's office or the minister's office in those cases would continue with those appointments. Clearly they have the right to do that, but quite frankly I would be surprised if, after we had gone through that process and determined that people were not appropriate for those positions in our view, they would continue with the appointments. But we have not reached that point yet. Again I go back to the point that in the cases where there has been disagreement, I am not sure that any other process would have resulted in a different kind of conclusion.

Some of the members opposite have made a number of points with which I agree, interestingly enough, with respect to the committee's responsibility to review agencies, boards and commissions. Part of the frustration they have felt, I and members on this side have also felt with respect to our inability, because of the time constraints, to carry out that part of the committee's function. The new procedures that are suggested here before us today in fact give us that latitude.

Quite frankly, as a committee and also as a subcommittee, we have been going through a bit of a learning process with respect to that, because initially, and even in the latter weeks, the attitude has been to basically put as many names forward to be reviewed by the committee as possible. Perhaps our experience will begin to show that that in fact will become less of an occurrence and we will focus in on those appointments that really are crucial and really are important to address. That, quite frankly, is as much in the hands of the opposition parties as it is in the hands of the government members, because they get to choose, as we do, the intended appointees that will go forward to the committee to be reviewed.

1650

There are a couple of other points I would like to clear up. I know one or two speakers commented about the view of the government members with respect to the summer sittings. While there may have been agreement on the issue of asking the House leaders to look at the question of the summer sittings and how they impacted upon the committee's role, I want to be very clear on the record here in this House -- and I think I made this very clear within the subcommittee meeting -- that my agreement on that was never attached to my feeling that the process was not useful. I have always maintained that I think the process is useful and I think that the issue around the summer sittings was a question of the time-frame responsibilities we had and the fact that there are certain time lines that click in according to the standing order.

Much has been made of the question that we are not allowed to call witnesses. Again, I think that the House leader, in presenting the motion, addressed that issue. I just want to reiterate that I do not think it is useful for the committee to be in a position to be able to call witnesses because I think it turns the process into a very different process than what I think it needs to be. It is also interesting to note that in at least a couple of important appointments, people in the public certainly took it upon themselves to send us various letters indicating where they stood on the different candidates coming forward, and clearly that information was used by the members of the committee in their questioning of the particular candidates.

Another issue I would like to address is the question of members who were not there for the interviews voting on the approval of the appointments. I think, again for the record, that issue was something we on the government side raised and very clearly said we were prepared to make changes on if the opposition members wanted to. But I think there was a sense within the committee -- and this is important to put on the record -- that because of the many responsibilities members of this House have with respect to the various committees they are expected to be on, they wanted as much as we did, and perhaps more than the government members did, to retain the right to be able to substitute members. I think, quite honestly, people cannot have it both ways, in wanting the right to substitute and then complaining about the fact that substitutes are used in situations where members of the committee are not able to attend.

The other issue I want to address is the question of the Macaulay report, which suggests a different way of dealing with this whole process. As we indicated in our report to the House, it is something we have not ruled out as something we should do down the road. It is something we feel we need to have a bit more time to take a harder look at, and to see if in effect it makes sense to make some or all of those suggestions. I have no doubt that is an issue that the committee at some point will address and I hope will address in a useful fashion and come forward with some recommendations.

For the time being I am quite comfortable with the changes that have been proposed with the new standing order that is before us. I think that the process of the review of intended appointees by the committee -- and I stress that word "review" -- has worked reasonably well. There have been some problems, but there always will be whenever you embark upon a new process like this.

Notwithstanding the member for Etobicoke West putting me and all the government members who sit on that committee in the category of hacks or parrots, as he chose to call us -- I have been called a lot of things, but never a hack or a parrot -- be that as it may, I think the government members have tried to do their job on this committee in as reasonable a fashion as possible, keeping very clearly in mind their responsibilities as members of this Legislature, not just as members of the government but as members of this Legislature. They have carried forward their responsibilities with a high degree of commitment and respect for the process. We have spoken our minds when we felt the individuals coming before us had some flaws and we have supported them when we felt they were appropriate for the task at hand. In that sense, I have no hesitation in supporting the recommendations that are before us.

Mr Elston: It is an interesting debate to join, because I am not a member of the committee except on occasions when, as the member for Dovercourt just suggested, others were not available to be there, although I happened to be in on the questioning of several people about whom a fair bit has been known. Michael Cassidy was one and Richard Johnston was another. While they displayed in a real way their continual ability to be highly polished in performing in public forums, I found it rather depressing --

Hon Miss Martel: They have also made some commitment to the political process. Come on, Murray.

Mr Elston: The House leader of the government indicates that I might be a little bit off the mark here, but I did find it a little bit distracting that we could only spend 10 minutes as a caucus interviewing the people who were assuming jobs of very real importance. For instance, Mr Cassidy was going to join and has joined the Ontario Hydro board now. We all know that corporation is a huge operation and has a very large undertaking in respect of both business and other things that are being done in Ontario.

We know Mr Johnston likewise has a very real and difficult job as he joins an agency which is responsible for dealing with the government policy as it is reflected in community colleges and the relations that are required there not only to advise the government on new policy but it also seems, as we questioned him, to make a commitment to move government policy into the operational fields in community colleges.

While those people are very, very polished and while the credentials they showed us during our time there were of good quality, I guess is the only way I can describe it, 10 minutes to talk to those people per caucus is hardly enough to examine people's credentials seriously enough to be involved in the process of actually appointing them.

We know where the real discussions take place with respect to the appointments. They take place in the office of Carol Phillips, whose job it is to go through all the requirements, the right qualities list, for each of the applicants for the jobs at hand and tell the Premier or tell the ministers who sponsor the appointments, either by order in council or through the Premier's own hand, that these people are the right type of folks or these people are not the right type of folks, or there is a danger here or a danger there.

That is where the real work is done, because they take the time to go through all of the attributes of the people, including letters of reference and go minutely through the CV of each person to ensure that the appointments are going to be proper. That is where the real work is done, and it is not in a 10-minute interview that is conducted by one, two, or in our case, three members of the Liberal caucus in a public forum.

It is impossible to get to know a candidate who is not otherwise well known in a 10-minute public discussion. I found that very distracting. I found it in fact not very helpful in coming to terms with how a person was going to apply his or her philosophy to the operation of a task which is seen by almost everyone as an extremely important one in at least those two circumstances.

The issues about input are very interesting. The member for Hamilton Centre, who is also the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer -- Moneybags he is known as down in Hamilton, I believe -- has asked, "How much time will we get with you?" I will tell him there was an awful lot of time taken with respect to appointments that were of particular importance in a large number of cases. There was sort of a series of agreed-upon intraparty discussions conducted with respect to certain appointments, but I agree there were not any public sort of charades conducted about whether or not there were going to be any approvals given by the Legislative Assembly committee.

I can appreciate that in today's government, the way this province now operates as it does through a whole series of boards and agencies doing the work that government in its form here, conducted under the auspices of the executive council, used to do on its own. This is a highly complex province. This is a very difficult place to manage through the offices of a mere, what is it, 27 or 30? I have forgotten how many there are now. They are all so good. I lost count after I got over 25. It is impossible to conduct the affairs of the province through merely the executive council members' offices. That is quite clear. Government policy and the operation of the province must be conducted through the offices established under the boards and agencies and commissions, about which the appointments we are discussing here are of concern.

1700

For me, it is a very right sort of idea that the government should express in the majority of situations a real preference for people being put in place who will respect the guidelines and policy of the administration of the day. Otherwise, how can you have consistent application of the government's direction? I have no question about that.

I do have a question, however, when there is some scheme -- which is how I describe this -- brought down to make people think in some way there is a real review process in place. There is not a real review process in place. In fact, here are some of the difficulties.

There is no veto. I know the member for Dovercourt said there are some people who want it and some people who do not want it, but there is no veto. This group of people will never, I would dare to say, say no to somebody who has been cleared through the Office of the Premier. If that person appears anywhere as an intended appointee, he or she will become the appointed. That is very clear. We saw the statistics given by the member for Ottawa South, who indicated there were some 53 people who had been approved in the committee and some 318 possible votes to be cast by the members of the government party. All were cast in favour of the anointed appointees.

It is for me a real concern, because that means there is not only the tendency to feel that it is not really a good process, but a real --

Mr Grandmaître: Obligation.

Mr Elston: -- obligation just to pass through the appointments, as the member for Ottawa East has indicated. It is not only a perception that there is no power but it is a reality as well.

I have a real concern as well about some of the other parts of the operation of government that this reflects upon. I know the House leader from the other side has some interesting things to do here for the rest of the day, and so do some of the members of my caucus, but I have gotten on to a wee bit of a thought about the philosophy of government here and I may go for a long time.

If this is really the operation of appointments to government boards, agencies and commissions that are charged to administer government programs on behalf of the executive council, if these people are taking carriage of delivering programs to the people, helping the public administration of the province, surely then it is but a very short step for the government of the day to really open up the process that talks about who is qualified to administer the province and indicate that deputy ministers will go before the committees, that perhaps members of the executive council should appear, all should appear at some stage in front of the committee to tell us a little bit about how they perceive the philosophy they have personally brought to bear in their intended areas and actually tell us how they are prepared to administer the public purse and the public trust and to develop policy which will be reflective of the need of the day. If we can do it for heads of commissions and boards and agencies, surely it is but a very small step to take it one step further and say the deputy ministers should appear and so should their bosses, who are going to be executive council members.

I can understand that perhaps it would be a little difficult for us to say much about the Premier. The people really speak most specifically about the Premier's position. The leader of the party that wins the largest number of seats generally is the Premier, and we cannot question that. But the Premier himself -- or herself; I am convinced that "herself" will be the case at an appropriate time -- should bring the choices he makes by order in council to those chief positions of the public administration in the province.

Why should it not be extended? That is a question I leave dangling just for the people who have talked to us about how open a process this is. I think it would be fair enough for us all to say that while there is a whole series of qualified people on the opposition benches, very few of us would expect that the Premier of the day would choose opposition people before his or her own caucus members. We can understand that, but for me it still seems necessary that the opportunities for public administration which are presented to the chosen people who are brought by the Premier for executive council membership should also be reviewed.

I would also like to ask some other questions, because I am very much interested in this whole process of open government and having people available to be reviewed by the committee. I want to ask a series of three or four questions.

For instance, what happens if a person comes in front of the committee on a day when we have a 10-minute discussion -- 10 minutes for the Liberal Party, 10 minutes for the Conservative Party and 10 minutes, in fairness, for the New Democratic Party? After having gone through some 30 minutes, which could be shortened, by the way, if the person chooses to make a statement or chooses to speak eloquently but at length, what happens if, after reviewing the material, we find out that some of the material which is presented to us is false? There is nothing in here that allows the committee to develop a recall process. Where is the real power, therefore, to influence the person to retain the direction that he or she says to the committee he or she will undertake? What perhaps would happen if this committee were given the opportunity to review the Hansard material and find out whether or not everything that was said during the questioning was actually what was true? That is an interesting question and maybe that ought to be followed.

What can we do with respect to letters of reference which are received? As I understand, there have been only a couple of occasions in which letters have actually been received. One was a letter in support of a candidate, and there were three letters, at one point, against the appointment of one person, Mr Eliesen, who of course was becoming the leader of about a $6-billion corporation. I think that is right. I guess he is to become the chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro; a person, by the way, who is running such an important organization that we were allowed all of 20 minutes as a caucus -- 20 minutes here, 20 minutes for the Tories, 20 minutes for the New Democrats -- and he is in charge of what now has become a tool of economic development, useful for the government because it allows it, through his agency and through his direction, to actually indirectly tax the people of the province when the Treasurer runs out of his taxing resolve.

It seems to me that if people come in and say there is something wrong with this person, there should be leeway for the people in the committee to interview those individuals who are against the appointment. There should be an opportunity, for instance, to interview the people who are in favour of the appointment. That, for me, would provide a balance which I think would be significantly better and of value for the members when they ultimately come to make their choice by voting yea or nay.

What happens if a person comes in front of the committee and undertakes to do certain things, to carry out certain mandates that he believes are what he is required to do? What happens if a person comes in and says: "I have a duty to perform in relation to the ratepayers of Ontario Hydro as a director. I have an obligation of trust to protect those ratepayers against an increase of their rates beyond reason to do some other purpose"?

What could happen if there is an undertaking that certain policy movements should be taken on behalf of the colleges in the province, and that having never been done, the person continues to sit as the chairman of the board of regents? Is there any obligation, if it is really this committee which is making the appointment, to have those people return and report and also to make sure they comply with the undertakings they give to the members of the Legislative Assembly?

1710

Other questions come to mind: Having been appointed by this committee, if that is really what is happening, when will these people report to the committee? Will they be required to report on an annual basis? Should they not come to report to the people who appointed them? Should they not tell us what they have done since the last time they appeared in front of the committee? Should people be challenged if they do not fulfil their mandate?

If there is a real appointing power, or if there is a real ability to say something about people who are administering the public purse, the public trust and the public policy, then those people have an obligation to come back to the source of the power. If we analyse exactly to whom those people are now reporting, we will find they report back to the minister, to the Premier or some other organization only remotely connected to the Legislative Assembly committee supposedly empowered to appoint or not appoint them. If this process really works and if there is accountability in the process, then they ought to come home to the committee and tell us what they have done since they last appeared. Why is that not allowed in here?

I could go on for a long time and I apologize to my friend the member for Simcoe East who wishes to speak. I will wind up now.

There is a whole series of questions that fall, once you get into the whole issue of open government, about the style of delivery of public policy, the style of public trust generated and to whom the obligations and duties are owed by the people who are appointed. That discussion has not been held in a way that is full enough for us to support these materials. It seems to me there are a tremendous number of problems left hanging, a whole series of issues about the manner in which the public of Ontario are to be administered, that prevents me from fully supporting the activities of the member for Sudbury East.

It also comes to me that while all of these issues are swirling around us about the efficacy of this committee, the agenda for making this committee, its rules and regulations permanent is designed but one more time to put an end to the political fuss, to close the book on the discussion of philosophy of government with respect to boards, agencies and commissions and the openness of this government as compared to any other. It is designed in a way, at this late date in the session, to bring closure to bear, to prevent a whole series of questions being asked over the summer.

There was a suggestion made at one time that we consider this a little bit longer merely by extending the rules into the fall. I understand the resolve of the House leader to get this done and get one more item off the books, and I fully appreciate that she wishes to do that. Having done that now, though, it really behooves her to revisit, or to visit for the first time perhaps, some of the questions I have raised, and revisit some of the questions raised by the member for Ottawa South, the member for Ottawa East, the member for Etobicoke West and some of her own members who privately would say there are problems with the process when there are huge provincial corporations receiving new members to boards or new heads of their organizations.

This is not a process that comes to an end now. When you are involved in public administration, either you keep pace with the changing world you live in or you quickly become irrelevant. This particular committee may very well be irrelevant before it gets started, but the discussion around the issues I have enumerated and around which my colleagues have spoken earlier are not irrelevant. Those questions still will exist. The manner of public administration will continue to exist for ever as far as I know, as far as I am able to foresee in the future anyway. Something will always be done, it seems to me, designed to show that one government has done something better than the others. This process is not better. It is a real joke when you only look at 53 out of so many hundreds of people being appointed by this organization.

We will adjourn tomorrow and, happily, people will take a bit of time off. But I can assure the people watching that we will not be on holidays between now and October. We have a lot of committee work to be done. We have a whole series of jobs to do. Happily, however, we will be gone from this place, but the executive council never rests.

If the executive council member is not here, there is a substitute who will sign the appointments that have been checkmarked off by Carol Phillips and by all the proper people in the ministry. A whole series of appointments will be generated for whom the 30-day period will not cause any jeopardy whatsoever, because in July and August those appointments are going to get out of here, taken away from a review by the committee in the interim and deemed to have been appointed. There will be a deemed report, in fact, to the chamber, which is not even sitting. That is another matter, but that is what these rules say.

It seems to me, therefore, that there will be an increase in activity projected for a whole series of appointments which could cause us to be severely limited in the choices of people to be seen. All of those things are causing me problems, and all of these result in what would be viewed by a right-thinking person, a rational person like yourself, Madam Speaker, to say that this motion should be rethought and at the very least should probably be amended when we come back here and look again at these rules in the fall.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the honourable member for partaking in this debate, a right-thinking individual.

Mr McLean: I will be brief, but I wanted to put a few things on the record with regard to the report of the standing committee on government agencies that has reported on its activities and the dissenting report from both the Liberal Party and the Conservatives.

I have been on this committee full-time since it was established, and have enjoyed my work when we dealt with agencies, boards and commissions, reviewing agencies. However, since we have been reviewing the appointment process it has been a little bit different. The reality is, back on 10 December 1990 the Premier announced his government would be implementing new measures to ensure greater fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions. The Premier at that time stated: "The public has a right to see appointments made by a fair process, a process the men and women of Ontario can trust. By ensuring public access to all details of appointments and by peeling away some of the secrecy surrounding the process, I believe we can ensure fairer selection of the best possible candidates."

The Premier and his government have instituted a rather feeble attempt at this post-appointment process, because the people should be aware it is not a selection from two or three for one individual; the selection process is done by the government and the ministry, and that one individual is then recommended. It goes then to the committee, whereby it has the opportunity to interview and deal with that individual.

So the process and the access to all details of appointments have not been provided -- I want to be clear about that -- nor have any of the shortcomings of the patronage system. It has not changed. The government avidly criticized for a long time the appointment process of previous administrations and we are still of the opinion that any governing party should have the opportunity to make its own appointments. We see nothing wrong with that. However, I do not think the impression should be that there has been a hearing process whereby the best person is picked from the committee interviewing that individual, because that is not happening.

I believe the money and time consumed to deal with these is a waste of taxpayers' money, because of all the ones we have dealt with, not one member of the government has voted against any of them. The House leaders indicated they are all good candidates. That is fine; then make the appointments and be done with it. They should not have it go to a committee to try to indicate to the people of this province that they are open and fair and being dealt with in committee, because they are not.

1720

So there are a lot of deficiencies in the process and those deficiencies are exactly as I have explained. They are recommended from the ministries or the Premier's office. I think that is fair and I do not think a committee should have to deal with the background of individuals after they have been recommended, because no government ministry is going to recommend anybody unless it has thoroughly searched out the individual and knows the person is a good appointment.

So I see no problem with their continuing to make their appointments. There are individuals in my riding who thought it was going to be great now that we have this great open process whereby people can write in and can apply for a position. That is still there. The process is there; they can do that. But the problem I have with the process is that the ministries themselves are going to make sure they pick the individual they want and, as I said before, I see nothing wrong with that. I think that is fair.

There have been some recommendations, Madam Speaker, in committee, as you are well aware. On many recommendations, the government members do not see eye to eye with the opposition parties and that is understandable. I can accept that. However, if the process is going to remain the same as it is, I do not feel it is worth the amount of time and effort that is being spent on it.

I indicated there has not been one recommendation that has not been accepted by all members of the governing side. So why come to the committee with the appointment? The government should make the appointment and have it done. It should not give the people in the province the impression that it is open. A lot of people thought that three, four, five or 10 people would be in open competition and they would be looked at by the committee. It is not the committee that deals with that, so the government should not try to fool the people that it is happening. It is not happening.

I say to the government it should make the appointments and continue the same as it has in the past. I would be quite happy to see it done that way because I feel that my time in committee is not being put to the best use that I would hope it would be. Dealing with the agencies, boards and commissions -- like the food terminal, all these other boards -- I feel that this is more beneficial. It is important that a lot of these agencies be called to look at the efficiency and the working of them.

The Macaulay report that was authorized back in 1988 by the previous administration has not fully been looked at. I see in the report here, where they indicate that further consideration would not add any useful purpose to the committee from that Macaulay report that was done.

It simply says, in the report, that we were prepared to continue to co-operate to improve the process. We want to improve the process. I would like to see the process improved, but I do not see that happening and I am disappointed that we are not dealing with the Macaulay report in more depth to make sure that some of those recommendations that were recommended in that report are put in place. I am hoping that it will come forward.

I do not have much more to add other than the fact that I want my friends to realize that the process they thought was here is not here for open scrutiny of the people and the committee to deal with. It is a recommendation from the ministry and it is either accepted or rejected by the committee and there has not been one that has been recommended that has not had the full support of the government members.

So the process is there, but the process is also there to make those appointments and the government might as well go ahead and do them and forget about the committee and let the committee go on and do some more important business.

Mr Mahoney: Is this going to be an apology?

Mr Hayes: No, you do not apologize to someone when they do not do anything. So they cannot do anything wrong.

Mr Mahoney: The only time you stand up is to apologize.

Mr Hayes: And I am big enough to do that.

Mr Mahoney: Also big enough not to take credit for it.

Mr Hayes: Madam Speaker, one thing I do want to say is that the members opposite are very fortunate that you are in the chair this evening, because I am sure you would not be putting up with a lot of this nonsense that is going on over there. Anyhow, Madam Chair, I would just like to --

Mr Elston: Madam Speaker.

Mr Hayes: Madam Speaker. Thank you very kindly. That is what happens when you do not speak too often, when you listen a lot.

The member for Grey made a comment, and I can kind of sympathize with him a little bit, that he feels he really is not part of the process in making some of the decisions. I was here before, when the previous government was in charge of making appointments. If he feels frustrated today he should have been here before, because before, even the members of their own party, the members of the government, did not know who was being appointed and had no idea of the background or the expertise or knowledge the person had to deal with the various committees.

I find this process is a real improvement from what has happened in the past. I think the important thing here is that even though the members opposite say we in the government have not voted against any of the appointees, that does not say we will not be voting against any of them, because no one in this government told us how to vote. The fact of the matter is that something that is happening now is that the public is really seeing what is happening. The public has an idea of who these people are who are being appointed to the agencies, boards and commissions. The media are welcome to come in and they do come in and even interview some of the appointees and interview the members.

Something else that is being done now is the ABCs, which is a book that is put together and put into the libraries and into the constituency. As a matter of fact, one of the appointees we dealt with this morning had found the information out on that certain committee and applied. The individual was not searched out by the government or any other members to say, "Come and put your name in for this committee."

So I just think what is really good here is that the committees have a right to see the résumé and even number 6 on the proposals here, where it says:

"Upon notice from the clerk of the committee that an intended appointment has been selected for review, the minister who recommended the appointment shall provide to the committee a copy of the intended appointee's application, a copy of his or her résumé, a description of the responsibilities of the position, a detailed description of the candidate search process and a statement of the criteria by which the intended appointee was chosen."

Now if that is not open government, I do not know what is. I do not see anything secretive about that whatsoever. There is all kinds of information that the members have, and if the members choose to vote their way -- I know some of the members of the official opposition did vote in favour of some of the appointees and I think I even saw one of the members from the third party put his hand up halfway there this morning. I think he felt that was a good candidate.

I believe if the members opposite really wanted to be serious about this process they would see that it certainly is a breath of fresh air. People tell me we have a government that is open, a government that lets people know just what is going on. If this process is secretive -- I do not know -- I think the members are dreaming a little bit. I think they will see this as a great improvement and they will see more improvements in the future in this process and many other processes.

1730

Mr Hope: It is a pleasure to stand before the House today to talk about this issue. I think it is really great to see such a proposal being put forward today in the process we have been using. Did members know there are dedicated people in my riding? These were dedicated people even before they searched out these positions that are available, who took the time, their own personal time, and some of them did have families too, to be actively involved in their community and understanding what is going on.

Under the previous administration, whose members hold haloes over their heads, that information and understanding when the appointments were coming up was not accessible to us. The only time they found out, I must add, was after the fact, after the appointment was made and they maybe went in front of the board or in front of the commission. Then they found out who was in that position.

We have people with great knowledge out there in our communities who have been activists without pay. They were dedicated to what they were doing in their communities. I start to wonder if the intentions of this government did not stimulate some conversation in the communities, because when I am sitting there in my office on the weekends, dedicated to making sure I hear the viewpoints of my constituents and understanding their concerns, there are a lot more people now coming to see me about this, about possibilities of their obtaining positions and how they go about it.

One of the fortunate parts of it is that they are people of all political colours. I have had people -- and other members must have had it too -- who come into the office and say: "Randy, I really never voted for you in the election, but the information I have presented to you today just shows I have a different philosophy. But I have been actively involved. I do have a social conscience on this particular issue." It is one of the things that make them feel they are a part of this government -- an active part in decision-making.

The other important part is that, as the member for Essex-Kent clearly put out, previously members from our area and other areas probably did not know who was being appointed. They say this is a closed process. Unfortunately, I do not sit on the committee. Sometimes I wish I could, just to see what was really going on, but as we are dedicated to our jobs and understanding what is going on, quality time is an issue. They have an opportunity to see who is going to be holding the positions, possibly once the vote is conducted. They have the ability to understand, because one day they may have to go to that individual and consult with him on an issue.

So when they say it is a closed process, this government has opened the in door, the out door, the side door. We even opened up the right-hand door a bit so they could come and see.

When I listen to the arguments talking about quality time sitting in these committees, Madam Speaker, I know you are about as capable as I am, which is very capable.

Some hon members: More.

Mr Hope: Oh, more? Okay, even more. I must add that one of the things they talk about is 10 minutes to interview an individual.

Mr Hayes: They chose that, by the way.

Mr Hope: I am being told by the member for Essex-Kent that they chose that time frame. They have been so used to making 10-minute speeches in here to get a question across, that is why they are having a hard time utilizing the proper 10 minutes allocated to them. Now most of us can ask a question in 15 seconds. We can get a lot of questions in and we will get a lot of knowledge from that individual.

The other important issue they talk about is quality time, sitting on this committee. I must add that individuals themselves, when they are doing something, make it the most quality time they can. If you go in with a negative attitude, Madam Speaker -- and I know you never walk into an issue with a negative attitude. It would never happen. But if you walk in with a positive attitude to contribute to a process, there are a lot of good things that come out of it -- having these committee hearings and the committee itself understanding the individuals who are being recommended and then appointed and understanding the philosophy in opening up the doors.

A good thing about this that I heard today is that this document is now being put in our public libraries. I just wonder how many people actually go into that public library, because I believe in my community and in the library there.

Mr Elston: The attendance is up.

Mr Hope: The member for Bruce says the attendance is up. Do members know what? He is right. The attendance is up, because more people are going in. When they are looking at this book that talks about agencies and commissions, they also take a little bit more time to scan through and look at the books and read the books. If we did a survey, we would probably find out that the membership in libraries has probably increased because more people are utilizing the libraries.

Mr Hayes: Government openness.

Mr Hope: It is a matter of government openness. We have opened up not just the doors of Queen's Park to this issue of appointees. We have opened up the libraries. We have opened up their constitutency offices, which had probably never been opened all the years they had been in government. That is one of the values of it.

Do members know what I feel very good about? Because I do not sit on this committee, I feel very good that people are taking the time to come in and see in my constituency office. Do members know why? As I clearly indicated before, we get people of all different political colours who come into our offices. Some do not have political colours; they are neutral.

Because of the propaganda that is being put out by the other side, the --

Interjection.

Mr Hope: Okay, the slanted view of different issues, the budget and that, gives me an opportunity, because I take the time to talk to those people about those issues.

I fully support this initiative that our government is putting forward. I think it is one of many that should be done across this great country. This is nothing new for this government. We said we are committed to opening it up. We are opening it up and we are making sure that we can get a broader viewpoint of people making applications to these jobs. I know they are going to serve this province well. I reflect on a member who has been appointed to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario with some little confrontation. I know he is not a card-carrying member of this party. He used to be the member for Sarnia and he is a credible person. He has a lot of credibility in the Sarnia area. I am sure he will serve the province well on the liquor control board.

There is a process in place, a credible process, and I know the people of Ontario feel good about it. Unfortunately, I wish the opposition would also feel good about it.

Hon Miss Martel: I appreciate the participation of members in this debate. I have some comments I would like to make in response to what I have heard and to reiterate again the government's position with respect to this matter. I will not respond to the comments made by all the members, but there were a few that struck that I feel I have to respond to.

First, the member for Leeds-Grenville made a point, about a particular appointment to the WCAT, to which I take some offence. Fortunately, most of the afternoon was spent in very non-partisan debate, but he did make a particular reference to the fact that one of the appointees and one of the people who came before the committee happened to be a friend of one of the members of my staff in the House leader's office. I am sorry he made that comment, because the fact of the matter is Nick McCombie is a very good member of the WCAT. He has served well as a worker representative and he will continue to do so. It was most unfortunate that, instead of talking about his qualifications to that particular board, he would make reference to knowing a member of my staff. I felt badly about that, because otherwise I assume he is a good non-partisan Chair in that committee.

1740

Second, the member for Grey said he was there on several occasions when members voting on particular appointees were not involved in the interview process. I will just take members back to the process on all committees in this place. We all sit through hearings, whether they are public or whether they are interviews from various ministries, talking about public accounts, etc, where there is a great deal of substituting in and out on those committees. That is a necessity in this place. People have other commitments. They sit on other committees. We all recognize that the roles and responsibilities of members mean they have to be as flexible as they can while still trying to assume those responsibilities.

By the same token, I do not think that means the committee members did not communicate to the people who came in what the extent of those discussions was and that the government members themselves did not have information about the particular people who had been interviewed and did not have some good, solid ground upon which to base their vote. I just point out again that we all go through substituting in and out. That is not new or uncommon, but I certainly do not think it undermines the ability of individual members to make responsible decisions when they sit on each of those committees.

Second, he also said he does not want to be part of a committee that may be blamed for bad appointments at the end of the day. I point out to all members that we all recognize that at the end of the day the government will be judged on the basis of the appointment and on what we do or do not do over the next four years. We all recognize that. I do not think it is very fair or reasonable to say that because particular members participate on that committee and participate in those appointments, they are going to be held accountable at the end of the day. They will not. The Premier, the cabinet, this party and the government will be held accountable at the end of the day. We will receive credit for people who do a good job and we will receive condemnation for people who do not do a good job and may act in a foolish way. I think all of us recognize that.

The member for Etobicoke West made a point again and again of stating that he sat in that committee and has not seen any government member vote against a particular appointment. I think I would make two points in this regard. First, I do think it speaks to the quality of the candidates the government is putting forward. We will all have to agree that because the process has been opened, because the information is now made available to the public, there are many more people applying. I really believe the government is making a serious effort to canvass the broadest possible number of the public in order to get good candidates coming forward. I do not think the comment he made with respect to the government members not having voted against a candidate is really relevant in this case.

I think he forgot to point out, as the member for Dovercourt did, that he goes in there and votes against every appointment. I cannot believe there are not good, solid people coming before that committee who can fill a good role in the public service. I am certain he must have supported Andy Brandt's particular appointment. I know our members did. I thought it was very appropriate that a former member of this House who had served the public well in public office should have an appointment to this government. I have no trouble with that at all. I also think that many, if not all, of the people coming before that committee have good, solid reputations and good credentials. At the end of the day they will make fine servants of the public and they will carry out good public policy in this province.

A couple of questions were raised by the member for Bruce, and I will try to respond to them as best I can. He talked about the possibility of an appointee coming before the committee and making some particular comments, and when you checked in Hansard later you would find that those comments were not true or valid. To respond to that, what would we all do if someone did that before a hiring team? That person would be fired or would not get the job. In the same way the government will be judged by its appointments at the end of the day, if someone has come before the committee and willingly misled it, at the end of the day we are going to have to do something about that. I do not think it is appropriate if someone does that. I would certainly like to know if someone has done that. I think the government members themselves would be very embarrassed about that and would not want to proceed with the appointment of someone who has willingly and knowingly come before the committee and lied to the members about his or her qualifications.

Second, he asked what can be done with respect to letters of reference, etc, and pointed out again that we should have the opportunity to bring other people forward to talk about the candidate in question. I really worry about that particular process and what that would do with respect to people who want to come forward, but are quite concerned that people who do not want them to be appointed, not for reasons of their capability but because they hold a completely different philosophical view about the world, would come and try to engage in perhaps a character assassination.

I worry about the kind of message that sends out as we try to bring qualified, competent people in to do the business of the public and whether we will get those kinds of people coming forward because they might worry about that happening. I think we run a real risk there and that is why the government does not believe we should go that one step further and invite people to come. It has happened at the committee that people who have --

Mr Elston: Should one dismiss that problem at the stage of review?

Hon Miss Martel: No, but I think what has happened at the committee, and the member having sat on the committee a couple of times will know that people who --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address your remarks through the Chair. It is easier that way.

Hon Miss Martel: I am sorry, Mr Speaker.

People who have concerns have made them very clear to the members of the committee. In fact, during the questioning of the particular appointees, a number of those people have raised questions about concerns raised by people from outside. I think there is a way to have that discussion. I do think there is a way for people to have their concerns raised, although they would go through the opposition members. I have no problem with that, but I do have a real concern that if we start opening it up, we will lend ourselves to a process that is not really to talk about the qualifications of people, but to come and assassinate their character because people have a different philosophical view about where they are heading in the world.

Third, he talked about the obligation of appointees to come back to the committee and report on what they had done. There are thousands of appointments that go on with this government. In fact, the committee itself will go through a good number, but not by any stretch of the imagination all of the thousands involved. At the end of the day this government will be accountable for what those appointees do. If they go out and act foolishly in a way that is a complete embarrassment to the government, the government will suffer that; not the individual members of the committee, not the opposition members, but the Premier and this cabinet because we allowed that appointment to go through. I really believe there is a check with respect to the conduct of the people we appoint in this province.

If I might, I would just like to go through the recommendations made by the opposition members and reiterate why the government does not believe it can accommodate the particular requests. There was some comment on the recommendations.

First, the opposition has requested that the committee obtain information on the candidates who applied for the positions but were not selected at the end of the day. Again, I do not think this agency should be considered as a hiring agency; it is not. The mandate of this particular committee is to deal with the appointments the government has put forward. I do not think it would serve much of a purpose to put to the committee all the candidates who applied and all of the qualifications because at the end of the day we may well turn off people who otherwise would have applied but did not want their interest known until a decision was made.

I do not think there is a necessity to proceed along that route. We certainly have indicated, inasmuch as we can, that we will provide all the relevant information with respect to the candidates, their qualifications, a detailed analysis of the search that was carried out and the criteria by which candidates were successful. I hope that at the end of the day we give committee members the comfort they need to determine that the persons are quite capable, competent and qualified to do the particular job we are asking them to do.

Second, the opposition has requested that submissions be received from third parties with regard to the appropriateness of intended appointees. I think I have spoken sufficiently on that point to say again that we are very concerned about what that might lead to. We certainly think the public has an opportunity to express its concerns via members who can then ask questions of the candidates as they come before the committee. I think that is an appropriate mechanism and a way for that to occur.

Third, some of the members of the opposition have asked for veto power over the particular appointment. I point out again that it is a matter of law that the Lieutenant Governor in Council, on the advice of the Premier, makes these particular appointments. At the end of the day the government will be responsible for the appointments it makes and we will be responsible for the conduct of those appointees. If they are wise, we will reap the benefits from them. If the appointees have been foolish choices, we will suffer from the condemnation, and I think that is the way it should be.

At the end of the day this particular committee is not a hiring agency, as I said before; it is an agency whose mandate is to look at the appointments put forward by the government, comment on them and have access to the qualifications and criteria by which the appointees were actually nominated. I do not see that this will change. A number of members talked about the Macaulay report and a separate agency of the government to deal with appointees. I can only say at this point that very report is in the hands of the Attorney General and the Chairman of Management Board and we may well move towards a similar system, but at this point in time the government does not have an intention to proceed that way.

The Deputy Speaker: Miss Martel has moved government notice of motion number 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1752.