The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today is October 19, a full six months behind the usual time for the government's announcements on new school construction. It's outrageous how the NDP has gotten away, so far, with very little public criticism of this appalling lack of action.

What's the holdup, Minister? Be upfront with the people of Ontario. If you can't come up with the money for new schools, at least have the guts to say so. All you've done so far is tell people to wait and wait and wait for an announcement.

In May we waited patiently for a word from you, and nothing came. In June you said we would know by July. In September you said we would know by October 1. Now it's three weeks later and there's still no peep out of your ministry.

Minister, will you build the new schools for the high-growth areas of the province or won't you? It's time for you and your NDP cabinet colleagues to come clean with the people of Ontario. This is an issue of vital importance for the students of this province. How can the school boards in my area and elsewhere plan buildings if they don't know what you will approve or not?

Trustees and administrators all across the province are getting very restless at this constant foot-dragging by the Rae government. If you need any political advice from your new NDP top civil servant, David Agnew, it should be this: Get on with the job of capital announcements for new schools.

ST JAMES SCHOOL

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): St James school is a community school with a 35-year history of being a genuine focal point for extensive service to the population it serves. It has provided the students with quality education and the community with a focus for its development. It serves approximately 20 different first- or second-generation ethnic groups and is the most heavily used elementary facility in the region of Halton's Catholic school system. Many heritage-language programs run by the community are available at St James. It is also the first place of consideration for the many ethnic festivals which are held throughout the year.

It is now over a year since I accompanied representatives of the separate school board to a meeting with the former Minister of Education and presented her with a brief explaining the necessity of capital funding for St James school in Oakville. I presented a petition to the Lieutenant Governor on the same day as the meeting containing the names of 1,000 supporters -- parents, trustees and educators.

Despite phone requests and letters during the year since this meeting, neither the school board nor I have had a response from the ministry. You are simply ignoring the question, and this is totally unacceptable to both the people of my riding and to me as their member of Parliament. I say to the Minister of Education: Please let the people of Oakville know when they will receive the capital funding for St James school.

FAETHORNE PLACE HOUSING COOPERATIVE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I was pleased to participate in the ground-breaking for the Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative in Sarnia last Friday afternoon, an appropriate event considering it was Cooperative Housing Week in the province of Ontario.

The true spirit of cooperation has been a key element in this project. There are many players who have come together to get this project off the ground. Because of their efforts, 60 units will be made available to residents of Sarnia-Lambton.

Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative is a non-profit corporation established by local community volunteers to help address the need for assisted housing in Sarnia and the immediate vicinity. Being non-profit in nature, this cooperative is accessible: accessible in the fact that it breaks down barriers to people with lower incomes who wish better housing and, most importantly, it is accessible in that membership is open to all people.

As well, on September 21 of this year I had the pleasure of announcing annual supportive housing funding for the Ontario March of Dimes in Sarnia. The March of Dimes will also be a participant in the Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative. They will provide supportive care for some of the cooperative's residents in barrier-free units, a result of cooperation between the ministries of Housing, Community and Social Services and Citizenship.

This Sarnia project is a fine example of the government working in partnership with dedicated groups in our community to help improve the quality of life for our citizens. I congratulate the board of Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative and all those who have participated in this project.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): For undecided voters on the referendum question, I urge you to think of Premier Joe Ghiz's words, "The prophet of the perfect is the enemy of the good." Having so many different governments and groups agree on a package in a diverse country like ours is in itself a tremendous achievement worthy of our support.

Remember that a meticulous and demanding constitutional lawyer such as Premier Clyde Wells and former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada endorse the new accord. They know every Constitution represents compromise. Even Pierre Trudeau had to hold his nose for the patriation and a charter deal in 1982. When Trudeau recently announced his support for the No side, he admitted his "notwithstanding" clause was an unwanted and dangerous section. In other words, if Trudeau had insisted on the perfect deal in 1982, there would have been no deal, no Charter of Rights and no patriation.

Constitutions will always be imperfect and be subject to interpretation and court cases. Our present Constitution has been subject to thousands of court interpretations in our 125-year history.

Yes, the Charlottetown accord is not perfect, but remember Joe Ghiz's words, "The prophet of the perfect is the enemy of the good."

1340

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The Ministry of Community and Social Services has for several years administered the special services at home program. This program has assisted the families of disabled or developmentally handicapped children by providing a contract worker trained in speech, occupational or physiotherapy who comes into the home and works on a one-to-one basis with children, some of them suffering from Down syndrome, severe epilepsy and uncontrollable seizure disorders. This is the type of necessary program that the NDP in opposition would have stridently supported.

However, in government the NDP has callously cut these services to families in Wellington who need them: Theresa and Earl Campbell and their daughter, Tannis, of Maryborough township, four hours a week cut to zero; Mrs Janice Goll and her daughter, Sarah, of Erin Township, 10 hours a week cut to six; John and Barbara Perkins and their daughter, Becky, of Hillsburgh, 22 hours a week cut to 10; and Jonathon Nymeyer and his mother, Alice, of Drayton, cut from 10 hours a week to zero.

The people of Wellington understand the need for fiscal restraint in tough times, but they also demand that priorities for government programs must make sense.

How can this government spend $4.5 million on a health survey asking people if they think they are too fat or how often they use condoms and then cut programs for disabled kids and their families? This makes me feel sick.

I can't believe an NDP government would be so uncaring as to cut back essential services for disabled kids and their families. As their representative, I am absolutely livid. It would be sad to see the NDP degenerate from being a party of ideals into a movement of heartless deceivers. If you do not correct this horrible policy of program cuts to disabled kids, that is exactly what you will become.

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): In February 1992 the Wentworth County Board of Education voted to discontinue school bus transportation to Cambridge secondary schools in Waterloo county. The Waterloo county high school is approximately six kilometres away, while the closest Wentworth high school board is approximately 30 kilometres away. The Wentworth board of education has decided to bus these students from one to one and a half hours each way to a Wentworth school as opposed to busing them 15 minutes to an out-of-county school.

Dr Murray Scharf, dean of education at the University of Saskatchewan and an expert on rural education, states, "Lengthy bus time can negate the opportunities for students to participate in high school cocurricular activities outside of normal school hours." Most parents would drive their children if they were within 15 to 20 minutes of the school. A round trip of one hour or more almost guarantees that parental permission would not be granted. He also states:

"I am of the opinion that at some point, at or beyond two hours of transportation per day, the academic achievement of high school students is significantly affected. In conclusion, busing beyond a certain point adversely affects achievement."

I would conclude from Mr Scharf's observations that these rural students' academic and extracurricular activities could be jeopardized by the board's decision.

I have had much discussion with parents, trustees and ministry staff. The busing decision has caused great concern for many parents and students in Sheffield. It is hoped that the soon-to-take-place meeting with the Minister of Education will help resolve this most distressful situation in an expeditious and amiable manner.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN MISSISSAUGA

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to inform members and, in the same way, congratulate the city of Mississauga's economic development office, which won three awards recently at the annual conference of the Economic Developers Association of Canada.

The awards, announced at the Ottawa conference in September, were received for the city of Mississauga's 1991 business directory, for the city's Infotech newsletter and for a print advertisement campaign.

The business directory has been a frequent winner over the years, but the print advertising campaign was a very unique campaign. The ads were targeted at technology-based industries and designed for frequent repetition at reasonable cost.

Since 1987, marketing materials produced by the city of Mississauga's economic development office have won 17 awards in provincial, national and international competitions of economic development professional organizations.

I would like to recognize the efforts of Karen Campbell, the economic development director for the city, and all the members of her department. The excellence of their work is undoubtedly one reason why the city of Mississauga continues to be successful in attracting new business and new investment. Even in these economic times and even facing the uncertainty this provincial government is foisting upon the people with the labour law reforms and many other very negative things, our economic development office is still a success.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Committee consideration of Bill 40 will end today despite the fact that there are many amendments which have not yet been debated. The so-called consultation process has been an absolute sham.

I am extremely disappointed that the presentations from the more than 600 groups and individuals that made representation to the committee during this summer are not being given any consideration by this government.

Of the 94 amendments which I have introduced, we have only had time to debate 32. It is absolutely essential that the government allow more time to debate the amendments. To do otherwise is to ignore the genuine concerns of the people who devoted time and effort to preparing presentations which they believed would be given serious consideration.

I was also very surprised that none of the 15 amendments introduced by the Labour critic from the official opposition included an amendment regarding the use of replacement workers, since the September 29th news release issued by the leader of the official opposition stated that the Liberals would be putting forward such an amendment.

This government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible while public attention is centred on the referendum debate. There has never been any demonstrated need for this legislation and there is no demonstrated need for its hasty passage other than to try to bury it during the referendum debate.

The government fails to recognize the devastating impact of this bill on the people in this province in its haste to appease its own special-interest groups.

CONSERVATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to praise the council of the town of Pickering and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as they have, after a long struggle, ensured the preservation of an important part of Frenchman's Bay. I was proud to be able to play an integral part myself.

The councillors for this ward have been working diligently for many years in order to achieve this outcome, especially Eileen Higdon, the local councillor, who knows well the importance of the bay as she lives right next to it herself. Her battle to ensure that the town houses that were proposed for this area were not built goes back many years, even prior to her election. She and her regional counterpart, Kip Van Kempen, are pleased, and with good reason.

I can only say that I am gratified to be part of a government that understands the importance of significant wetlands and allows for their protection. The wetlands policy this government put in place was unfortunately not in effect in time to rescue these important eight and one-half hectares, as the initial approvals were in place prior to this government's coming into office. It is wetlands such as these that help to purify our drinking water and allow a haven for many rare and endangered species.

My hat is off to the town of Pickering and to the MTRCA. I hope they continue in their understanding of the importance of finding creative solutions that will preserve our environment. I look forward to working alongside them in the future. It is only through these types of partnerships that our mutual constituency is well served.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Thursday, October 8, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, raised a point of order with respect to ministerial statements. His concern was that the statement made by the Chair of Management Board in the House did not follow precisely the text of the statement that had been provided pursuant to standing order 32(c).

I refer members to a decision made by Speaker Edighoffer on May 29, 1990, in which he indicated that the Speaker does not receive copies of written statements and is therefore unable to follow along. I would add that, even if the Speaker were required to receive copies of written statements, it would not be her or his responsibility to determine whether a discrepancy is substantial in nature or whether it is an embellishment of no consequence.

While the powers of the Speaker in this regard are circumscribed, surely it is in keeping with the spirit of the standing order that ministers adhere closely to the written text when making statements so as to avoid possible misunderstandings. It may be that on occasion, changing circumstances require that the oral statement differs in some respect from the written statement. In such a situation, I would expect that any minister would wish to advise the House of the departure from the prepared text.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, you will remember that on Monday, 5 October, I raised a point of order with respect to a point of personal privilege, the right of opposition critics to be in the Legislature and what happens if they are not able to be there for other reasons.

I recognize that as a result of that point, the government House leader, in my case, adjourned the committee hearings for a period of two days. However, I do believe the point still remains. I think it is important that you do rule on that point so that I, as well as all other members in this Legislature, today and tomorrow and for all time will know our rights as opposition critics.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the point raised by the member. It was my understanding that, first, there had been some accommodation of the situation; second, the committee for the Legislative Assembly has been charged with the responsibility of taking a look at the wider question. But indeed I am pleased to take another look at it myself, if that would be of assistance to the member. I will report back to you later.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. It has to do with the deficit estimates for this year and a story that appeared in the Windsor Star on Friday, written by what I guess you would call a crusading reporter.

Treasurer, you know that in your budget you have put an estimate of revenue from the federal government at $1.2 billion in what's called fiscal stabilization from the federal government. From the day the budget came out, Treasurer, you will know that we in the official opposition have questioned that number and have felt all along that you would only get at best a fraction of the $1.2 billion.

The report on Friday in the Windsor Star confirms our part of the story, confirms, at least in this report, that the expectations are that you will at best only get a fraction of the $1.2 billion, and therefore your deficit either will be substantially higher or you'll be required to make substantially larger cuts than you'd planned.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: When you prepared that $1.2 billion, knowing that in the other two cases in this country it's taken literally years for that fiscal stabilization payment to be made, knowing that the federal government had not budgeted the $1.2 billion, what assurances did you have from the federal government that your $1.2-billion estimate was a fair and reasonable expectation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I did indeed read the article in the Windsor Star. I guess one good tabloid deserves another, because I read in another tabloid on the weekend that the federal government was quoted as saying that we deserved the money and that we would indeed be getting the money. So I'm not sure which side of the argument you want to come down on.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): You cooked the books.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think I'll respond to the interjection that this government "cooked the books." When we made our prediction on what our revenues and expenditures would be for 1992-93, we saw no reason to believe we would not receive money from the federal government, based on the fact that there was an obligation on the federal government to pay that. It has been part of the fiscal arrangements with the federal government since, I believe, back to 1967, or certainly a long time ago.

Ontario would not be the first province to have launched a claim -- other provinces have done so -- and Ontario has been most generous, I think appropriately so, over the years in the sharing of our revenues with other parts of the country. When a recession hits Ontario harder than any other part of the country, it seems to me that we have a right to our fair share and that there was no reason to believe we would not receive that $1.2 billion as part of our fiscal stabilization claim.

Mr Phillips: You've not answered the question, with all due respect. I said to you, what assurances did you have from the federal government? I know you've put a claim in, but I will say again, there have only been two other claims that have been paid in this country. Both took several years to make, and the full payment was not made.

In my opinion, Treasurer, you've put a number in that you have no reasonable expectation of getting this year. I asked you, what assurances did you have from the federal government that a $1.2-billion revenue was a reasonable revenue to put in this fiscal year?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there was no reason to expect we would not get it. Second, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt refers to a longer time period that the other two provinces, Alberta and BC, had to wait when they put a fiscal stabilization claim in some years ago. Their claim was based on resource revenues and the dramatic drop in resource revenues. That is not the case with Ontario's predicament. A lot of things have been tidied up in the fiscal arrangements since that time and, to this day, I see no reason why that entire claim cannot be honoured this fiscal year.

Mr Phillips: Treasurer, if I might be as direct with you as I can, the people of Ontario want to know what is a reasonable estimate of the finances. I submit to you that the federal government has never indicated it had any intention of ever paying $1.2 billion this fiscal year. I would say you have had no assurance from them and I'm trying to get a fair and reasonable answer out of you of what the people of Ontario can expect.

Treasurer, we have asked now four times publicly, starting last December, for the proposal that you sent to the federal government. Will you agree to release that? Will you agree to release any correspondence which indicates the commitment that you've been able to get out of the federal government?

Also, you are going to bring out your financial estimates in another week or two, I gather. They've now had that proposal for almost a year. In your estimates of revenue that are going to come out in the next few days, will you undertake, for the people of Ontario, to give us the most accurate estimate, based on comments and discussion and dialogue with the federal government, of what is a reasonable expectation on the fiscal stabilization? In our opinion, there is not a hope of your getting $1.2 billion and to continue to put it in there is misleading.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll be as direct as I can with the member opposite. Certainly, to my knowledge, at no point since that claim was put in with the federal government has anyone in the federal government, from the minister on down, indicated to us that we should abandon all hope of getting a claim this year; at no point.

The minister has indicated that his officials and our officials from Ontario are working assiduously on the numbers. They are very complex and as the revenues are collected the numbers do change so that it's not possible to give you a final set of numbers on what the components were of the fiscal stabilization claim.

But there'd be no reason for us to pretend that we are going to get something we're not going to get. What purpose would that serve? It would simply delay the accounting until the end of year. So we would have nothing to gain by pretending we could get the number, get that claim, if we didn't think that we would actually get it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, you will know that, due to the dictatorial time limits imposed by your government, today happens to be the last day which the legislative committee examining Bill 40, changes to the Labour Relations Act, will have in order to consider any amendments.

Late last week, Mr Minister, your government sprung 26 more amendments to the bill, knowing that there were only 30 minutes left in the committee to deal with the legislation. Unlike other pronouncements we've had on this bill by yourself, Mr Minister, there was no time for the usual fanfare or media blitz.

Minister, what explanation do you have for holding back 26 changes to the labour relations bill until the last day for committee hearings on this legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm a little surprised that the member would raise that. I think it's irresponsible for the honourable member to intimate that these are new amendments we're trying to sneak through. The government did not introduce any new amendments to Bill 40. We submitted the legal text for amendments that we announced we were going to submit on October 13.

1400

Mr Offer: In a word, baloney. You sat on these amendments for two weeks. You used the time allocation procedures to limit the amount of time the committee could consider the amendments and then you sprung 26 changes on the committee at the last possible moment.

Mr Minister, your government's own time closure allocation motion says that proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm prior to the last day the committee can consider the bill. Minister, just before the 4 pm time period, you dropped 26 changes to the Labour Relations Act. This behaviour is incredibly amazing. It's not surprising, as you have indicated, because you have not seen fit to sit on the committee, to listen to one submission made, to listen to one amendment made to the Labour Relations Act. No one on the committee or in the various communities that are concerned with the bill will have a chance to discuss your changes to the bill because you are forcing the committee to conclude its consideration of the bill today. You didn't inform the affected groups.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Smile on camera, Bob. Come on, Mackenzie, smile on camera.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West, come to order.

Mr Offer: Mr Minister, what explanation do you have for the many groups that have concerns with this legislation, that came before the committee, that want to have an opportunity to respond to the bill and to the amendments? What explanation do you have for shutting out those groups from responding to those changes you made last week?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The explanation is stupidity and pigheadedness.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: We know what kind of answers you've got. You're driving the economy into the ground. This province is doing worse than any other province in Canada.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to please come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member for York Mills does better when he's taking on the member for Mississauga North in the committee. Sharon Murdock, our parliamentary assistant, announced in committee on October 13 that the legal text had not yet been prepared for the replacement worker provisions and the contract tendering provisions. We announced the amendments we were bringing in. Some of these amendments are also the French-language technical corrections and other technical amendments, and they were brought in before the deadline. But the members of the committee knew exactly what we were moving and bringing in well before that.

Mr Offer: It is absolutely incredible that a minister who didn't sit on the committee for one moment would give a response like that. Mr Minister, these hearings have been a sham from day one. You have turned your back on those many groups that came before the committee with concerns. The changes you dropped last week will not only not allow those groups to read them; they will not even allow them to analyse and discuss what the impact of those changes will be. Today you are telling those groups and those many individuals who have very deep concerns about the bill to trust you. Nobody does. They don't believe you and they don't like the process you've instituted and stage-managed.

Mr Minister, you now have the opportunity to stand up in this Legislature and say to everyone in this chamber and to those watching that you will call on your government House leader to give two more days to the committee to discuss those changes, to deal with the impact and to listen to the groups. Mr Minister, are you in favour of this committee extending its hearings for two days in order to deal with those changes?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As far as timing is concerned, we have adhered to the required deadlines. There's been ample opportunity for debate. The amendments the member is talking about were not new amendments. He knew exactly what was coming a week and a half before that, and I think the committee has had ample time to deal with the issue.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to pursue the question concerning Bill 40. I find it interesting that the official opposition is questioning the minister on the lack of input and amendments on the replacement worker section when the official opposition itself hasn't tabled any amendments on that particular amendment.

However, Mr Mackenzie, the question I have for you is this: Why have you not allowed sufficient time for the opposition to discuss all of the concerns that were presented this summer by over 600 presenters, presentations that were made in oral and written form? The time line that has been given by this government is simply inappropriate. Why do we not have time?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it interesting that a process that's already gone on for better than a year and a half is now said to be inadequate. I find it also interesting that when this minister and his staff have talked to more than 320 groups -- and I think there were some 220 that appeared before the committee -- we should now be told that the process has not been adequate. I reject the argument being made by the honourable member.

Mrs Witmer: The minister may have received submissions but he certainly didn't consider the submissions, and I'd like to zero in on one area.

This summer, the retailers in this province came before the committee and told you about the problems that picketing on third-party property would create. You know that the retail sector represents over $30 billion in annual sales. They employ over 500,000 people. That's about 12% of the total people in this province who are employed. As you know, they have been badly hurt by the recession, cross-border shopping and a record low level of consumer confidence. They are hurting. In fact, in the first three months of this year alone, about 3,000 retail jobs were lost. We need to regain the confidence of consumers if we're going to achieve economic recovery, but I can assure you, Mr Minister, that consumers are not going to shop in any environment where there's picketing.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mrs Witmer: Your legislation is going to impact on business people. Will you introduce an amendment to remove section 12 from Bill 40?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member knows, if she has studied the legislation at all, that the intent doesn't allow picketing at the entrance or exit to a shopping mall. The legislation says clearly that the only picketing that can be conducted is at the actual entrance or exit of the individual unit that might be under an organizing drive, and it certainly doesn't disrupt the activities of most shoppers in that mall at all.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, that does not answer the concern of the retail community, because not only was it unhappy with the original section, but you've made it even worse.

Two weeks ago, you tabled an amendment to section 12 that is going to increase the concerns that were brought to your attention this summer, to which you didn't listen in the first place. Your new amendment is going to allow any person to represent a trade union for the purposes of picketing on third-party property -- any person.

For example, a union could give any of the individuals who presently are hanging outside around the Eaton Centre a dollar and it could designate them representatives of the union. These people would have the authority to picket outside the entrance of a store in the mall.

By allowing the representatives of a union to take the place of union employees, the government, in effect, is allowing union officials to have replacement workers while prohibiting a struck employer from using the replacement workers.

Mr Minister, in describing this replacement section, it is kinder to use the word "inconsistency" than "hypocrisy". Will you withdraw this amendment on the grounds of your inconsistency?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I reject the grounds that I'm inconsistent, and no, I will not withdraw the amendment.

1410

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Solicitor General. The problem with the use of force in Metropolitan Toronto I see as a more systematic and people problem than in fact is on the surface. The police in this particular city are convinced --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: The police in Metropolitan Toronto who are on this work-to-rule campaign are convinced that nobody in this government has their interests at heart, that nobody in this government represents the interests of the rank and file officer. Some of that problem I think, in fact a lot of that problem, must be laid at the doorstep of the Solicitor General and the Premier of this government.

You've introduced policies which are totally out of touch with what the police are going through on a day-to-day basis in Metropolitan Toronto: filing reports for drawing their guns and appointments that police perceive as direct opposition to the rank and file cop.

The appointment of Susan Eng as chair was an appointment that a very small percentage of people, a very small percentage of officers, would have endorsed. You didn't consult with the union, although you'll consult with unions on an ongoing basis on a whole bunch of issues, but you didn't consult with the police officers in Metropolitan Toronto about the appointment of someone who frankly previous to this appointment was anti-police.

My question: To restore police confidence in you and this government, in this administration, why would the Solicitor General not appeal to the Premier that he reverse a bad decision and revoke Susan Eng's appointment?

Interjection: I'll bet you're not even ready for this.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): You wouldn't have to be too ready for that one.

I think the remarks by the member opposite really do nothing to help solve a contentious issue and matter before the people of Metropolitan Toronto in this particular area. I am pleased to see that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force has scaled down its job action and quite frankly I hope to see it end in its entirety very soon.

With respect to the appointments to the police services board, I think all members of that board, whether they be representatives of the government or representatives from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, are all collectively working in the best interests of the citizens of Ontario and the city that they represent and will continue to do that.

Mr Stockwell: The minister categorizes my remarks as doing nothing to help the process. Mr Minister, quite frankly you're doing nothing. You're doing nothing by coming to this House and refusing to meet with the police officers. You're doing worse than nothing by appointing a chair who none of the police officers want to see there, who they don't accept as a person who is representing them. You're doing nothing by not meeting with the officials who have asked a number of times that you meet with them. You're doing nothing by having the Premier sit idly by and yourself sit idly by when a very important issue is taking place in Metropolitan Toronto.

I submit to you that your ministers have all the time in the world to meet with Mr Upshaw and OPSEU about opting in some thousands of bureaucrats for union positions. You've all the time in the world to meet with other union officials when it comes to labour legislation. Why is it that you don't have half an hour to meet with another union that happens to be requesting a meeting for some number of weeks?

The question is, why will you not meet with this union, which is asking, begging you for an audience so it can explain its position?

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question?

Mr Stockwell: The only idea I can come up with is that this union doesn't have checkoff, and checkoff means it submits money to you. Is that what it takes to get a meeting with you, Mr Minister: money?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand that this is a politically partisan forum, and if anybody didn't understand it, after remarks from the honourable member opposite he surely would understand it. I've never heard such a diatribe full of tripe for several weeks in these chambers. He's absolutely wrong. I accused his honourable colleague in the front benches the other day of being out to lunch, and I think Stockwell's out to lunch with him.

I want to tell you that I as Solicitor General and the ministry I represent meet with the police stakeholder groups, all of them, on a regular, ongoing basis, and they in fact have input to all of our considerations and deliberations.

The suggestion from the member opposite is that we're refusing to meet with this association. I have said in this House for a week and a half, and publicly, that my door is open. As a matter of fact, just a couple of days ago the Ontario Provincial Police Association took up that offer, did appear in my offices and emerged to indicate to the public that it was not joining the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association campaign, which it sees as misdirected.

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I will, Mr Speaker, but it might interest the members opposite as well that other jurisdictions -- in Edmonton, Halton, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Sudbury and others -- all follow this existing program. It's interesting that many of these comments suggest they see all of this action as much to do about nothing. It is, and if people join the very positive, financial --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- resources that we provide to build on the framework of policing to ensure that our streets are safer and to give our men and women officers even more tools to do their job properly, we will all be a lot better off than this kind of railing rhetoric from members opposite.

Mr Stockwell: I think what the police are looking for, Mr Minister, is simply a meeting with you.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Is there a question here?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I do have a question. He's accusing me of being out to lunch. Maybe if you went to work before noon, I'd accuse you of the same, but I can't. This minister has been a major foul-up in every ministry he's ever attempted to run. If we asked you to fill out a report every time you made a mistake, Mr Minister, all you'd be doing is filling out reports.

The request from the police association is to meet. This minister hung one deputy minister out to dry. This minister now is going to let Chief McCormack hang out to dry on this one. They've asked for a meeting. Toronto has some different policing problems from Sudbury and Thunder Bay --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: -- and a few other cities, Mr Minister. You haven't met with them, you haven't allowed them to meet with you and your door has not been open. I ask you again, what is going to have to happen? We know about the deputy minister you hung out to dry on the corrections issue. Are you going to now allow the chief of police in Toronto to be left out to dry, to seek forms to force his people to go back to work --

The Speaker: Will the member complete his supplementary, please.

Mr Stockwell: -- before you allow a simple meeting to take place? Please, meet with them for half an hour; that's all they're asking.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It's been my experience, in the couple of decades or so that I've been involved in public office -- and I certainly thank the people who have supported those efforts and allowed me to serve in that capacity -- it's always been my experience that when you have a very poor case where you can't win the argument on the facts and on the merit, what you do is switch channels to some sort of personal attack. I think the remarks we just heard from members opposite speak to the reality of that situation I've just commented on.

In addition to that, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please. Minister.

Hon Mr Pilkey: If I might return at least to the substantive nature of the argument, I want to indicate again that I'd indicated in this House, I believe for weeks now, and in public that my door is open to those associations that wish to have an explanation of this particular regulation. Why the member opposite persists in saying that option is not available, even after having been publicly told that that is the case, I don't know, but I'll try it one more time, because some people have more difficulty than others comprehending: My door is open to that association or any other major police stakeholder group, as it always has been.

1420

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the cheque cashing issue. I want to know why the minister of Community and Social Services persists in defending the status quo. Since when are excuses a substitute for decision-making and action?

The minister says that Bill 154 is flawed because it does not suggest alternatives. I have encouraged the government and representatives of financial institutions to work together. We have the full cooperation of financial institutions. She knows that I have stated repeatedly how important it is to set up a system that will guarantee that low-income Ontarians can cash their cheques.

Minister, let me make a suggestion to you. The bill is lying here dormant: third reading. The bill was passed by all the members of this House. All you have to do is to suggest, through a motion, that the bill be sent to committee of the whole, be fixed, be honed, be fine-tuned and sent back to third reading, and pass it. Minister, why are you stalling?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have answered this question to the member a number of times. I am not defending the status quo. We are working very hard to change the status quo. There are a number of issues that we have done. We have tried to reduce the post-dated cheque problem, and we are getting good cooperation from both the municipalities and from our areas. We have done an implementation, which starts this month, of a new postal system called the NDG sort, which means that those cheques go on the date that they're dated so that we don't have the pre-date problem.

We have 35% of FBA recipients now on direct deposit. We sent out a notice in the August cheques to encourage more, and we're getting a good response. We have six different projects going on in municipalities to have direct deposit of GWA cheques. We are working with the Canadian Bankers Association around identification issues and around indemnification issues it has asked for. We are continuing to do that because we believe that until we have all possible avenues in place, it makes no sense to absolutely end the cheque cashing outfits, because people end up with no place to cash their cheques.

Mr Morin: Minister, I have never said that I wanted these organizations to be out of the picture. What I said is that no fees should be charged for anyone cashing a government cheque. We have the full support of the House. The key word here is "initiative." The minister has all the facts. She has all the cooperation she wishes. We can learn from Quebec's experience and implement Bill 154 without leaving anyone in the cold.

Why does the minister allow the charging of fees that deprive low-income Ontarians of money they desperately need? When will the minister practice what she preaches and become more responsive to the needs of low-income Ontarians?

I would like the minister to explain to this House why she is delaying action when you have lineups of people waiting for food and you take away their money. This is not fair. Minister, when are you going to take the initiative to resolve the issue? Don't linger; act now.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We know very well from the experience of Quebec that if you do not have these other measures in place, cheque cashing simply goes underground: The official charging of fees stops, but the underground charging of fees does not. We are not prepared to make the same mistake. That is why I keep on saying, every time the member brings this up -- and he seems to have no other topic on his mind -- that we are acting to try and prevent this issue in ways that we believe are more effective than what he is suggesting.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, I'm sure you're aware of the consultation conference in Windsor our party held on the weekend. There were a lot of questions with regard to the whole issue of destreaming, most of them raised as a result of the question and answer session that you and I had in the House last week. I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify a couple of points with regard to this issue.

First of all, you talked about September 1993 as being an implementation date, and then you further stated that there was a three-year phase-in, so there's some confusion. You also said that there would be common core documents available soon for the boards to look at in order to implement this program of destreaming. When will you be releasing the common core documents, since next September is less than 10 months away?

Second, what do you really mean by "phasing in"? Does this mean that one school within that board could start in September 1993 and yet all the other school boards could wait and initially defy your intent and not begin this destreaming until September 1996? Would you clarify those two issues at this point, please?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'll be happy to try to do that. First of all, with respect to the common core curriculum document, I expect it will be available some time later this fall. I'm hoping it won't be too much longer before that can be circulated to school boards and schools.

With respect to the implementation time line, the distinction between what starts in September 1993 and what goes on for the next three years is generally this: We've indicated that with regard to the issue of credits, that will start to be applicable as of September 1993; that is, that there won't be any need to calculate the credits on that basis.

Also, with respect to the formal labelling of the courses as general level and advanced, that will conclude as of September 1993. So there will not be those three different categorizations.

However, the pace at which the full implementation takes place is being left to school boards to determine within that three-year time frame, and that's taking very much into consideration the kinds of things that school boards have said to us in terms of wanting to have that kind of time frame within which to fully implement the changes in the teaching that will take place inside the classroom. I think that's the distinction.

I can tell the member opposite that, given the questions that have been asked, we will be sending out some clear explanations around this issue, so that again that issue --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- can be hopefully understood in a better way.

Mrs Cunningham: From this interchange that we've had in the House, I can see that the minister does recognize that there's tremendous confusion out in the schools, but for myself as critic, I can say only that there's total chaos in the ministry itself.

I would like to make this observation: When the minister told us that he had consulted with the boards on many facets of education with regard to this whole singular issue of destreaming, I can tell you that this weekend in Windsor we were told by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association that the only document it had any consultation over at all -- and that was a singular response -- was Transition Years, nothing else.

Minister, with regard to the confusion today and with regard to the chaos within your ministry, why are you proceeding with those destreaming programs next September when we won't even have the core documents, as you stated, for another month or two? Why are you insisting that you proceed with September 1993 when really you have now told the boards that it's okay to do this in September 1996?

Hon Mr Silipo: I need to clarify that I haven't said anything different or new today that I haven't been saying to people for the last four or five months on this in terms of the time lines. There is no change. If having some information that spells this out line by line is what's needed, then we'll make sure that it gets out there.

1430

Quite frankly, the Transition Years document that the member opposite speaks about is essentially the document on which the discussion around this issue has taken place and out of which has come our decision to go forward with the common core curriculum to the end of grade 9. The chaos that she speaks of, I'm not sure where that comes from, in her mind and elsewhere.

Clearly, there are a lot of experiences that have already been in place. There are a number of boards and a number of schools that have been offering this kind of a common core curriculum already. It isn't something new that is being pulled off the shelf and handed to people. It's continuing, in effect, with something that has been in place for a few years and suggesting a slow but steady process of implementation and phasing in that takes into account the experiences that school boards have and where they are in the process of implementation, given their own experiences and how ready they are to do full implementation or partial implementation by September 1993.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The staff can rest assured this is not about stable funding; this is about a Campbell Soup plant closure that is taking place in my riding. Campbell Soup in Chatham announced on Thursday it was closing its facility, laying off 175 full-time people and 225 seasonal jobs, which is going to affect 75 growers in my area.

Mr Speaker, I must remind you it has nothing to do with Bill 40. What it has to do with is a federal Tory policy called free trade, which is deinstitutionalizing and decentralizing the jobs in my riding.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Hope: If the Tories would quiet down, I could ask a simple question that's affecting the people in my riding. I know when they have a weekend in a convention, they get all worked up.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

Would the member place his question directly, please.

Mr Hope: I'm trying to get to the preamble about the jobs that are being lost in my riding. There is an alternative. To the Minister of Agriculture and Food, as you can see, my community has put forward an alternative, an ethanol plant, to try to help alleviate the job losses and the effects to the agricultural community in my riding. They have made a proposal to you.

My question is, Mr Minister, when can we see the positive effects the provincial government can play to help my farmers and help the workers who are being affected by this plant closure by putting an ethanol plant in my community? I want to know from the minister, what are you doing to help the people of Kent county with an ethanol plant, since we were one of the first ones in southwestern Ontario to have an ethanol pumping station?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The question of the ethanol industry has become very popular over the last year or so. In response to other questions in the House, we did establish an interministerial committee to look into the ethanol industry and see what form government support should take. That committee brought its report in about a month ago.

There were several suggestions in the report which may be acted upon by the government. They mentioned and discussed the possibility of how the government could support research and development. They brought up the issue of whether we should provide funding for pilot projects; whether we should provide assistance to do market development and encourage market use. They also brought up the issue as to whether the government should get involved in loan guarantees for different projects across the province.

I think the member may be aware that there are many different proposals being put to the government at this point in time. The proposal that he mentions today is a very good one because it's developed by the people in Kent county. It has a lot of merit and will be given first-rate consideration by the government if it has money to put into the industry.

Mr Hope: I know the minister has said that he has a number of consultation papers out there, but one of the important things that I must emphasize to the minister now is that this plant closure is supposed to wind down by April, which means that we don't have a lot of time to do a lot of studies.

You're absolutely right: This is put together by the farmers in my community. I would ask the minister if he could make it a priority to help restore some of the confidence of the farming community in my area and also those workers who are being affected. I'm wondering if the minister could assure my community that he will take a serious look at the proposal that's being put forward by the farmers in my community.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member that we will give it very serious consideration. Furthermore, I happen to believe that when communities come together, as happened down in Kent county, and come up with a proposal, very often those ideas put together by the people in the rural communities are the best ideas a government can support, and we look forward to supporting those kinds of ideas in the very near future.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question's for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you will know that today the outgoing chair of Ontario Hydro, just before closing his door on the way out, announced that Hydro plans to chop $7 billion in capital expenditures over 10 years.

This announcement appears to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It claims to lower electricity rates, but it doesn't provide any cost breakdown whatsoever. In fact, "defer" is mentioned seven times in the announcement. For example, the Manitoba purchase will be deferred for five years under a "mutually acceptable" arrangement.

The minister will know that over six months ago in this House I raised a concern connected with the Manitoba purchase, and I'm asking the minister today: How much is this "mutually acceptable" deferral of the Manitoba purchase going to cost Hydro's ratepayers?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I guess the member doesn't understand what "mutually acceptable" means. Mutually acceptable, in the case of deferring the Manitoba purchase, means that none of the penalties will apply. Ontario Hydro is in direct discussions with Manitoba Hydro. They're the two proponents of this deal. If and when they have a mutually acceptable deferral, then I'd be happy to provide the member with any details that flow out of that.

Mr McGuinty: The minister is guaranteeing there will be no costs whatsoever, and I'm pleased to hear that. The Manitoba purchase unfortunately is not the only project that's going to be deferred by Mr Eliesen. Perhaps the greatest pressing concern arises from the deferral of the decision affecting the jobs of 25% of the good people living in Bruce county. Over 3,000 jobs are tied to future of the Bruce A generating station, and these people are, understandably, extremely concerned about their future. What you've done, Mr Minister, is you've placed them in a painful limbo.

You tell us that you need further review of the matter in order to make a decision regarding the future of Bruce A; in fact, two studies have already been done specifically related to Bruce A. The last study with respect to Bruce A was contained in a report filed by the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Eliesen himself, submitted just over a month ago, to the board of directors. In that report they specifically address the issue of mothballing Bruce A and restarting it at some point or retiring it.

My question is: What is the real reason, Mr Minister, you are deferring this decision? Surely you do not need another study. Could it be because your ultimate intention is to ignore the studies and the reports done to date and to develop your own study with a preset goal of determining Bruce A must go? Could it in fact be that the criteria you wish to apply are political rather than objective?

Hon Mr Charlton: I can understand why the member for Ottawa South would like to have the province believe that this member, this minister, is making these decisions.

The reality is, he's right. There was a recent study completed of the retubing costs at Bruce. Those studies did not satisfy the board of Ontario Hydro, never mind the minister. The board made its own decision in this respect. This was not a decision dictated by the minister.

The review that will occur that has been ordered by the Hydro board as a result of its decisions this morning will occur over the next six months and will not have any immediate impact on jobs at Bruce.

The member is well aware that there has been a controversy that has plagued the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party when it was in power and is still an outstanding issue out there in terms of what the real costs of having to substantially retube and refurbish nuclear plants are. For the first time in this province we've made a decision that we want to get at the real answers in the public domain to those questions and, as a result of this review, the minister will consider an independent public review of this package that's produced in six months.

1440

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, you are not hesitant in issuing a directive in the form of a letter, without requiring cabinet approval, for the purpose of firing the president of Ontario Hydro. Now that you realize the power you have under Bill 118, would you not issue a directive to the board of Ontario Hydro to come up with some immediate plans for staff reduction?

Our sources tell us there are between 5,000 and 7,200 surplus employees at Ontario Hydro. Your news release today from Ontario Hydro says only that the result of that implementation might be a reduction in the increase. I ask you, Mr Minister, to issue a directive to that board to come up with a three-year plan not only to bring this 8% increase down to 2%, but a plan for the future to actually come down to zero and negative increases.

Hon Mr Charlton: The question from the member for Lanark-Renfrew is one that puzzles me a little bit. All through the hearings on Bill 118 the member opposite and his colleagues in the Liberal Party shuddered at the thought of this government having the directive power in 118 and bemoaned the fact that they expected us to use it to affect and hamper the day-to-day operations of Ontario Hydro. Now he's asking me to do precisely that.

More specifically, though, in relation to the question he's raised, Hydro has already announced staff cuts of 2,000 to 3,000. A hiring freeze is now in place at Ontario Hydro. The member well knows that those specific targets have already been set and the minister has already directed the board of Ontario Hydro to proceed, to leave no stone unturned to find further operational cuts.

Mr Jordan: While other businesses in Ontario are going bankrupt and the ones remaining are doing their very best to reduce operating costs and stay in business and keep jobs in Ontario, what is happening at Ontario Hydro is continually increasing rates, losing revenue, and you, Mr Minister, say you do not want to interfere. Through your letter and directive you in fact did interfere and assist in the removal of the president of an organization who did have plans to bring the organization into a businesslike corporation. Now you've got it completely adrift. They don't know where they're going to end up.

Mr Minister, you have the directive power to solve the problems. Instead of promises to limit rate increases in 10 years, we should be focusing on zero rate increases. Will you commit to a three-year plan that can make Ontario Hydro more competitive and lead to an actual rate decrease in the future?

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, would that the member for Lanark-Renfrew had been around to give that kind of advice to the Conservative government 15 years ago. For 75 years, Ontario Hydro grew unfettered in this province. Tories never had the courage to tell Hydro to reduce operations. Liberals were only there for five years, but for five years the Liberals never had the courage to tell Ontario Hydro to cut its operations.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: This government is proceeding to ensure that for the first time in its history, Ontario Hydro will be downsizing significantly its operations. We'll do our best with a bad situation left to us by those who preceded us.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Minister of Education. It was awful cold this morning in Welland and it's going to be a long, cold winter. If you're one of those kids at Alexander Kuska school, where you've got to try to get your education in a leaky, draughty, cold portable, I tell you, you're not going to have much prospect of a successful school year when you've got to battle the climate around you as well as all of the other struggles you've got to engage in.

Now look, the Minister of Education has known for a long time that those portables were long overdue for replacement. People like Roman Kruczynski, a leader in the parents' association there, have been fighting with the Ministry of Education for years.

Now's the time to do it. We need the jobs and we're going to get better value per dollar. This is a growth area of the community and those kids deserve better, don't they?

Please, would the minister tell us when the Ministry of Education is going to fund the replacement of those portables that should have been done a long time ago?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'm aware of the problems that exist in that particular community and that particular school. I can tell the member that we are now looking, as I've already indicated in the House, at the question of the capital allocation, which of course will be for the 1995 year, as is the three-year advance process, but which I know is none the less of help to boards in terms of their planning for future-year building.

As I indicated, I think, in answer to a question earlier, I expect to be able, before the end of this month, to give a very clear indication as to either making the announcement or giving an indication as to when those allocations will be there. But I know that school board has put forward very clearly the needs it has, including that particular school, and we are looking at that very carefully.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that the parents of those kids believed the ministry two years ago when the ministry said it was going to consult and it was going to let the local authorities set the priorities. After all, who's in a better position to know what the priorities should be for capital expenditure than the board itself, the people most closely and directly responsible to the electorate?

You see, the families of the children at Alexander Kuska and the board bought into that, but they got stiffed. The fact is that they made recommendations, they put Alexander Kuska at the top of the list, and what did the ministry do? The ministry said, "No way, Jose."

I tell you, are they going to have it done to them again or is the ministry going to give credit to those hardworking women and men this time, those hardworking, honest families that want a little bit better education environment for their children; you know, classrooms where you don't have to worry about leaks in the roof or cold air blowing in under the door?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can't answer for what happened two years ago. I can say to the member, however, that we've made it very clear to the school boards this year that we expect them to be setting the priority listings, and we would then look at those priority listings in relation to the needs of other school boards.

I know this particular school is at the top of the board's list, and I can tell the member that it is also high on the priority list within the region. I think that when the announcements are made, we can hopefully respond to the concerns that have been raised --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Blah, blah, blah.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- but I'm not in a position at this point to make a specific announcement with respect to that school.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): He's not here, Ron.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We do not have the minister in the chamber.

Mr Eddy: The minister was in a moment ago.

The Speaker: He has magically appeared. Okay.

Mr Eddy: On September 30, in a statement before the Legislature, I informed the minister of dissatisfaction with his lack of response to the county of Middlesex alternative package on the issue of annexation, dissatisfaction which is now somewhat more intense.

The people of Middlesex county and the city of London conveyed their serious concerns to the minister about the two days of hearings which were held in London on September 24 and 25, 1992. At that time, county Warden Frank Gare respectfully asked that the minister respond to the county's alternative package, which was presented to him in July 1992.

1450

The 24,000 acres proposed in the county's report to be annexed to the city of London is very reasonable, certainly much more reasonable than the minister's decision to annex 64,000 acres. County council is frustrated that the minister has left its report unanswered for several months, perhaps collecting dust.

Why, Mr Minister, have you failed to respond to the county of Middlesex alternative package?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It's my understanding that the county was also intending to appear before city council in London to see whether the city of London would agree to its proposal, so perhaps the member can tell me whether that's been done. My understanding is that it hasn't been done and that the city of London will not agree to a change in the announced boundaries that have already been made.

It's fine for the member to say that all will be well in London and Middlesex if we go ahead and accept the county plan, but the fact of the matter is, we're at exactly the same position now that we were before. There is no agreement between the county and the city. There is no agreement on the boundary lines between some of the townships. That's why a decision had to be made through the arbitration process, because it couldn't be decided at the local level.

Mr Eddy: The minister's question does not answer my question.

The 24,000 acres proposed in the county's alternative is twice the amount of land that would serve the city of London until the year 2026 by virtue of the city's own study. As well, the alternative package is supported by all of the county's municipalities.

There have been recent newspaper stories indicating that the minister is considering changes to the legislation. However, while the minister is refusing to discuss these changes, he is also ignoring the county's request for a reply to its proposal.

Mr Minister, will you respond to the county of Middlesex alternative package, and when?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I did indicate in the answer to the first question that there is no agreement in the county or in the city as to what the boundary lines should be. That's been the case for the last 11 years.

Somebody has to make a decision. The honourable member was actually the administrator for the county when all of this was going on, and he knows better than any of us in this room the difficulties. He was not able to agree to anything with the city. He couldn't provide the leadership when he was right there working in order to find an agreement.

The fact of the matter is, somebody has to make a decision. His government didn't do anything for the period of time that they were in power to resolve this issue. This is another example of a messy, difficult issue that the Liberal government left to us, and we've decided to make a decision.

PETITIONS

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now therefore the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

There are 266 names, and I've signed my name to that.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that's on the issue of stable funding, and I'll just do a summary of it. It has a number of whereases, and it says that two thirds of the farmers of Ontario do not belong to any of the farm organizations, nor is there concrete evidence that any GFO, general farm organization, in Ontario has been beneficial to the overall wellbeing of Ontario farmers. "Therefore let it be known that the undersigned object strongly" and oppose the legislation to empower stable funding in Ontario. I affix my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition from 135 citizens of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature of the province of Ontario to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London. I've affixed my signature.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition, from residents and the people who live in and around the village of Maxville. It's expressing concern over the closure of the liquor store one day a week, and the petition is addressed as follows. There are 751 names, and I have affixed my name to it:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the LCBO and the Ontario government to refrain from closing store number 309, village of Maxville, because of the undue hardships that this will cause other businesses within the village."

I submit this to the Clerk, sir.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition that's signed by perhaps over 2,000 residents of the city of Windsor who by their signatures protest the closure of the Wyandotte Street East store number 33 and urge the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Ontario government to reconsider the decision of the closing of the store at 4835 Wyandotte Street East. I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorities and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the act, which has tended to serve workers in large industrial centres; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduce conflicts and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same right as other workers have under the act."

This is signed by 57 constituents of my riding, and I have added my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition that's signed by 57 residents of the county of Middlesex in response to the arbitrator's report for the greater London area. My constituents have asked that the arbitrator's report be set aside, because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London, and it will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition, and it reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO TAX AND LIQUOR CONTROL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (RETURNING RESIDENTS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC ET LES ALCOOLS (RÉSIDENTS DE RETOUR)

On motion by Ms Wark-Martyn, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 85, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act and the Liquor Control Act to Provide for the Payment of Tax and Markups by Returning Residents of Ontario / Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac et la Loi sur les alcools de façon à prévoir le paiement de la taxe et des marges bénéficiaires par les résidents de retour en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have a few words of explanation?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr Speaker. The amendments in this bill make possible an agreement between the province and the federal government to have federal customs officials collect Ontario tobacco taxes and liquor markups.

People entering Ontario from outside Canada with more cigarettes, cut tobacco or cigars than allowed under federal returning resident exemptions must pay an amount equal to the Ontario tax due. This amount will be collected at the point of entry.

Similarly, people entering Ontario from outside Canada with more liquor than is allowed under federal returning resident exemptions are required to pay the applicable markup to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. This amount will also be collected at the point of entry by federal customs officers on behalf of the LCBO.

The bill also makes administrative changes to the Tobacco Tax Act. The effective date of the amendments is on proclamation.

1500

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted today there were no statements by the ministry during the appropriate time. This minister has placed a bill forward and I would like to point out that I believe it's an appropriate point of order that notice was not given, no statement was made, and as the critic for the Ministry of Revenue I had no opportunity whatever to respond to the proposal coming forward by the minister.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of order.

GRAND RIVER HOME IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES LTD ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Farnan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr52, An Act to revive Grand River Home Improvements Building Products, Supplies and Services Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I move third reading of Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act / Loi révisant la Loi sur le code du bâtiment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): In the absence of the minister, the member for Niagara Falls moves third reading of Bill 112, An Act to revise the Building Code Act. Do you have any comments, any statement?

Ms Harrington: It's certainly with pleasure and I'm very proud today to move third reading of Bill 112. This bill certainly brings forward changes which are long overdue.

In fact, last week I met with the chief building officials of Ontario at their conference in Richmond Hill and they are eagerly looking forward to the passage of this bill. It will lead to more efficient and streamlined building regulatory systems. It will support industry efforts to introduce more efficient, safe and innovative building techniques and materials.

Since the act was first introduced in 1974, a great deal has changed: new materials, designs and building techniques abound. Also, society today expects health and safety standards plus resource conservation and environmental conservation standards. Simply put, builders want to be able to introduce less expensive, more efficient building materials and the public wants safe, energy-efficient buildings.

The Building Code Act governs the administration and enforcement of the Ontario Building Code and the regulations used every day across this province. These revisions will bring the act up to date with the new realities. The reforms we are introducing are the result of several years of consultation with our building industry and its related professions: municipal building officials, home builders, associations -- people who work directly with the code every day. After public hearings and clause-by-clause review by the standing committee of the Legislature, consensus has been reached on a broad number of amendments. Bill 112 balances the need to enshrine health ans safety standards and the need to respond to the values and technology of today's Ontario.

First, the legislation will allow municipal building officials to streamline the building process by issuing conditional permits; that is, as long as zoning and other approvals have been obtained, construction can start. The remaining approvals must be obtained as the construction proceeds.

Second, the Ontario Plumbing Code will be transferred from the Ontario Water Resources Act to the Building Code Act. The new legislation will also help builders to cut costs by allowing the use of innovative materials, equivalent materials, techniques and other construction systems that are not authorized now by the code, as long as they have the same level of safety and performance.

The legislation also allows for the establishment of standards for existing buildings in such areas as maintenance, resource conservation and environmental protection. The existing buildings across this province, including our growing stock of affordable housing units, are a very important asset that we have to protect and preserve for future generations. Standards for existing buildings will be developed in a gradual process, in consultation with all the stakeholders.

We have also placed a very strong emphasis on health and safety. We are updating the process for building inspectors to obtain a search warrant to inspect a building when there is a concern about a safety problem. There will also be heavier fines for people who break the building code safety regulations.

To sum up the key points, it paves the way for the introduction of safe, innovative, cost-efficient building materials and construction techniques; it allows the use of less expensive and safe new building materials which will help our building industry become more competitive; it will place a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and resource conservation; it makes it possible to develop a uniform maintenance standard for all our existing buildings, including our stock of affordable housing and rental units.

Bill 112 is part of our commitment to make it easier to produce better buildings at a lower cost. We want to make housing more affordable and our building industry more competitive.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and to support the government in the legislation it has introduced. Not that we believe it is perfect: The opposition did introduce a number of amendments that we felt would have improved the legislation, but having said that, we think the government has taken a major step forward in bringing this legislation forward.

There certainly has been a positive reaction by the interest groups and the industry; also by consumer groups. You can see why, because really, as the parliamentary assistant explained, for the first time now the building code is going to cover things such as new materials, innovative technologies and services that obviously were not part of the code when it was last amended, some nine years ago.

I don't think anybody in this Legislature would argue with the need to enhance safety standards and to streamline. Those are two very important aspects. One added bonus is that it should help promote economic activity, and we certainly need that in the province of Ontario today.

I mentioned that it was last amended nine years ago; however, in the fall of 1989 the Liberal government introduced legislation that bore a marked similarity to what the government ended up producing. However, the Liberal government legislation, which was called Bill 103, added a number of things that quite frankly the interest groups, consumers' groups and industry groups seemed to quite like.

One of the them, for instance, was the idea of the certified professional program, where at peak times the municipalities could appoint certified professionals to assist them in trying to get rid of the backlog. This was endorsed by numerous organizations, including, I believe, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Home Builders' Association and a number of others. I think the Urban Development Institute, if I'm not mistaken, supported that as well. I regret that the government did not include that. I think the municipalities would have welcomed it and it would have helped the streamlining process.

1510

The government did move in one other area, which I'm happy to acknowledge, and that was the ungraded lumber issue. This was very contentious in our agricultural areas, in particular, and after a lot of pressure the NDP government did decide to amend the regulation related to that, which I think has been quite welcomed on the part of all parties.

One of the issues, though, that the government did not move on was that of including existing buildings under the standards of the Ontario Building Code Act. I am just going to read from that particular section, subsection 34(2), where the government has now given the cabinet power to make regulations "to establish standards that existing buildings must meet even though no construction is proposed, including regulations...establishing standards for maintenance, occupancy and repair."

That sounds like a fine idea and certainly when it relates to health and public safety, I think it's something we can support. But the problem is that the government has given us no idea where it is going in this direction and right now this uncertainty is the last thing the apartment building industry needs. They were very opposed to the government including it in Bill 112. They said: "Please withdraw it. Have separate legislation, if you must, but spell out what you're going to do. Don't leave us this vague thing which may add enormously to our costs and yet not give us a sufficient remedy to get those costs back."

Yes, the government members will say, "Well, they can go to the rent control board and they can apply for getting some of those costs back, if they need to do it." But if all existing buildings are made to comply with the current codes, even though they might be 60 or 70 years old, that could be an enormous undertaking and certainly not be covered by the 3% that the government says would be allowable on top of any rent increase for this type of purpose.

So that is the conundrum and it is a difficulty that, on the one hand, the government has said, "We want you to do this," which I think we all support, but on the other, it hasn't given us a mechanism where it can be paid for.

My preference would have been to deal with this through separate legislation, a separate piece, an amendment, at a later time, because the government has said, quite frankly, it doesn't know how it's going to do it. What we would have recommended is get your act in order first, then bring in the legislation. It would have made a lot more sense than going forward in this way.

I would urge the government to please consult with the various affected parties in the industry before it goes ahead with its regulations. Make sure that it is not only effective and efficient but also possible. Do not put landlords in this province to the stage where they cannot comply with the Building Code Act because they can't afford it, can't pay for it and therefore don't do it. Let's see if we can work out some sort of way that this can be done in a sensitive way.

There are a number of other issues that did come up and we did file numerous amendments. Unfortunately, not too many of them actually saw the light of day. In fact, I think this is the first piece of legislation I've worked on personally where none of our amendments were actually supported by the government although, interestingly enough, some of our amendments were supported by government members. I think that after they came back from the lunch break, though, they were told, "Please don't show up for the vote," because those members were suddenly absent. But I do thank, for their very sensitive contributions to the debate, the members who did argue in favour of a number of our amendments. We did try to be very constructive about it.

In particular, I would like to thank a number of groups which were extremely helpful in the consultation process: the Toronto Area Chief Building Officials Committee, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials, the Canadian Bar Association, the Price Club, the Urban Development Institute and the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. I hope I haven't left anybody out.

Those groups came to our hearings by invitation and I found their contributions invaluable. Certainly, I hope that it will give the government a sense of direction where it might like to go with some of the regulations.

As the parliamentary assistant has mentioned, the regulations for the Building Code Act are in the Ontario Building Code. This is really the meat and substance of it. The Building Code Act is just the framework. So we would urge the government to open up that consultation process for the regulations. I think there's a feeling out there in this province that the government operates too much behind closed doors. Regulations that are put through a cabinet process, which are never aired in the Legislature, which are never subject to public hearings, I think are increasingly being scrutinized by the public. There is a reaction to it out there.

In order to make sure these regulations work, it is necessary not only to consult with some of the broader interest groups but to take it beyond that and let people know what you're doing and why you're doing it so that they can have a chance and an opportunity to submit their ideas.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that our caucus is pleased to support the amendments to the Building Code Act. While it isn't as perfect as we would like it to be, I guess maybe we're setting a trend with the Yes campaign on the referendum, that we're going to work with all-party unity. Again, just like the Yes campaign, we might say the document isn't perfect but it is well worth supporting for the very positive benefits it brings. I'd like to congratulate all the parties involved and the parliamentary assistant and Mr Tilson and Mrs Marland, the critic for the third party, for their participation in this very worthwhile effort.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Niagara Falls, did you have any comments?

Ms Harrington: Yes. I do want to thank the member for Eglinton for her support, and I want to assure her that the consultations all around the development of a code for existing buildings and the regulations under the act will certainly be broad-based and involve all the stakeholders who are eager to start on it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further comments? If not, the member for Eglinton, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Poole: Yes. I just want to respond very briefly and say that I'm pleased to have that assurance from the parliamentary assistant. There is one issue in particular that I haven't mentioned which perhaps she could take back to the table. The Ontario Home Builders' Association is quite concerned about one of the prospective regulations which requires full-height basement insulation in houses, which will add, in its estimation, $3,000 to the cost of the home. They point out, I think quite rightly, that the cost savings to the home owner as far as energy savings will not even reach this $3,000 figure. We would urge the government to take a look at that.

I think our home building industry is in fairly serious straits right now and struggling to keep afloat in this recession, so every bit of help the government could give in this regard I'm sure would be very much appreciated. We want to make sure they have a balance between what's in the interests of the consumer and also what's practical and what can be done without damaging a very productive industry that has brought much prosperity to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I believe the last time the Building Code Act was amended was in 1974, as has been previously indicated. Bill 103, which the Liberals put forward, was proposed in 1989 and for obvious reasons never reached fruition.

I believe many people around the province, including the Liberals, to an extent, have given the impression that the bill is similar to Bill 103, and it clearly has, as the member for Eglinton indicated, some substantial changes. I think it is for that reason that we support the attempt to change many of the provisions of the Building Code Act. But we with the Progressive Conservative Party have many serious reservations, as we have indicated in the committee.

1520

It has been stated by the member for Eglinton and the member for Niagara Falls that this bill will improve the economy, and already, as the member for Eglinton has indicated in her response, we are finding out that there are many people around this province who are concerned as to the effects that the building code will have on our economy.

I received a letter, similar to the one which the member for Eglinton mentioned, from a constituent of mine, a home builder in Bolton. It was received this morning. He was concerned with the requirement for full-height insulation in all residential basements. It was referred to in this letter that the upgrade of such a proposal will, as the member for Eglinton indicates, add at least $3,000 to the price of a new home, and of course this is a very strange development, particularly when we're concerned with the affordability of housing in a slumping market.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): That's crap.

Mr Tilson: It's not. When you compare it to what the building code is attempting to do with heat efficiency, the equation of $3,000 for the price of new home, my constituent in Bolton tells me, will have an average carrying cost of $300, while the resulting energy savings will be approximately 14% of a typical heating bill. That's an annual saving of $120 to $140. So already we have a development from the building code which is going to cost $150 or more because of this new requirement for full-height insulation in all residential basements. This doesn't make sense with the economy that we have, specifically in the housing industry.

My constituent tells me, in a letter to me which I received this morning: "Our industry has been severely hurting through these difficult economic times and extremely high lot levies which has created layoffs of over 65% of employees.

"This additional charge will certainly create fewer sales in the new home market and spur more buyers to the resale market, which does not create the employment that the new home market does.

"Our industry and the consumer does not turn a blind eye to energy conservation but realizes that conservation must make economical sense."

So my constituent has given very good facts to state that the energy conservation that is being suggested by the government does not make good economic sense considering the cost of what it takes to put this together.

So we spent four days on this bill in hearings, two of which were hearing delegations and the other two were on clause-by-clause; a very strange type of thing, particularly when these hearings are very expensive to undertake.

The type of bill that I think more appropriately should be in public hearings would be something that deals with the economy, with our fiscal problems, with some of these unbelievable labour positions that are being put forward by the government and even the whole subject of auto insurance. But instead we had public hearings on the Building Code Act, which was Bill 112. I must say I had a great deal of difficulty, particularly when I had received all of the written submissions that were made by the delegations in advance. This is something that could have been done in committee of the whole, and it could have saved the taxpayer of this province a substantial amount of money.

I indicated that our party is concerned with the number of reservations that we have with respect to this bill. I believe that it's going to result in more downloading to municipalities. It will result because of the added regulations and the vagueness that's being put forward in these regulations. It's going to require larger building departments in the municipalities all across this province. It's going to require that those building inspectors be more qualified. They will have to be more trained. Who is going to pay for those things?

I'll tell you who's going to pay for those people: it's the municipalities of this province. It won't be the province; it will be the municipalities, and that will result in higher property taxes, something that certainly all of us in the Progressive Conservative Party have fought many times, particularly with the proposals that have been put forward by the previous Liberal government. I would have thought that this NDP government, which made many of the same comments, would be averse to putting more downloading of these types of expenses on to the municipalities, specifically with the restrictions that have been put forward by the Treasurer of 1%, 2% and 2% transfer payment increases.

There's only so much money in the pot and it's going to now cost municipalities with their building departments because of the added responsibilities that they are going to have. This will of course deal with accessory apartments and granny flats and those types of additional housing ventures that are being proposed by this government. All of those things are going to be administered by the municipalities, not the province. I have grave concerns as to what effect that will have on the property taxpayer of this province.

Some mention was spent during the committee on the subject of the certified professional, and specifically the Urban Development Institute commented on that. That was something that was put forward in the previous Bill 103 which never reached debate in this House, in which a provision was made for a certified professional program. The Urban Development Institute spoke of that in these hearings and indicated that the private sector could provide professionals such as engineers and architects who might be qualified to certify plans complying with the Ontario Building Code. That whole concept is being dropped.

The difficulty is, we all know that eventually, probably when this government goes out of office, the economy of this province is going to increase substantially and there will be another housing boom. More building of new houses will take place and we will need more building inspectors throughout the province to implement the many new buildings that will be constructed around this province. That means that the building staffs will mushroom.

There's a great flexibility of building inspectors, that in boom times many, many inspectors are needed and at times like this they're not needed. So they're either going to have to be laid off during these weak times or they're going to have to pay larger salaries to do work that really isn't necessary. That is why the proposal that was put forward in the previous Liberal bill we in this party would agree with, that you would never be able to properly staff building departments to meet the high volume in rush periods that could come about during prosperous times.

There was a suggestion made that these certified professionals might have conflicts of interest. I don't think so. I think it's a reasonable proposal. There are many municipalities which retain accountants, which retain lawyers, which retain engineers for specified matters which their specific municipality can't handle. Whether it's in boom times or whether not it's in boom times, they do farm out certain areas. Obviously, if conflicts of interest arise, those people don't take those positions. But for some unearthly reason this government almost forced the municipalities to increase the civil service again, which will result in higher property taxes.

Certified professionals -- and I'm referring to the Urban Development Institute submission -- would have shifted some of the functions on some permits to the private sector and permitted faster permit service in boom times and saved the taxpayers from employing redundant employees in short periods. I think that's part of the issue that I think this government should have looked at and for some unearthly reason has decided against. When the municipalities realize that, that they could have retained the certified professional -- instead, their building departments are going to mushroom all at the cost to the property taxpayer.

There was another proposal or another amendment that we had serious reservations on and that had to do with the cancellation of a permit which was issued in error, specifically clause 8(10)(a) of the bill, and I'd like to simply refer to that:

"Subject to section 25, the chief building official may revoke a permit issued under this act,

"(a) if it was issued on mistaken or false or incorrect information."

1530

The difficulty I have with respect to that section -- when you build a house, when you build an apartment building, when you build a structure, you go to a building inspection department and obtain a permit and you rely on it. You rely that the obligations you have to meet have been met -- otherwise you wouldn't get the permit -- and all of the requirements that you have to meet. It sets forth what your funding is going to do, what you're going to be obliged to do to put up a specific structure.

What this sections means is that if you get halfway up in the building structure and all of a sudden find there's been a mistake, that there's been an error made by the building inspection department, this says: "Sorry, we made a mistake. We're going to revoke the permit, notwithstanding the fact that you've been progressing with this building under a building permit issued by our municipality."

I don't know what effect that's going to have on legal obligations. Can you imagine if you had to build a home? You obtained certain financing, you had made certain plans, you'd paid an architect, you'd retained other people to assist you in the construction of this house and, halfway through, you find out that the building inspector had made an error.

What do you do? Does that mean you've got to tear the house down? Does that mean your mortgage company's going to come along and say: "Sorry, you still have to pay for all these things that you've been forced to pay to, but you're going to have to pay more money to undo it. We're not going to give you a loan for that because the whole financing issue will be then out of whack"? It's going to put the owner of a home in a very, very difficult position and I take strong exception to that section.

The Urban Development Institute also referred to that section and expressed its concerns. They commented and said that:

"A building permit is a vital document relied on by builders, owners and mortgagees. If all the information filed on all the plans was correct, and people rely on that permit, where do they stand if the CBO decides he made an error that somehow goes beyond mistaken information?

"Take the case of a permit issued contrary to the zoning bylaw because of an honest mistake in the building department, without any attempt to mislead by the applicant. It is clear that at present an innocent party who relies on a permit issued in the case of such an error has a claim for damages against the municipality, even though the municipality can stop the construction. This provision might call that damage claim into question and should be removed from the bill."

I think it's that legal implication they're afraid of. You're in the process of building and all of a sudden the building permit is revoked. What are you going to do? You can't go against the municipality because it has revoked the permit. The structure that you have which was legal on Monday could, all of a sudden, on Tuesday be considered illegal. You don't have a building permit because under subsection 8(10) the building inspector has revoked that permit.

It puts the home builders of this province in a very, very difficult position, because honest mistakes are made. They're not made frequently, but they are made. They could be a matter of a lot severance, or with respect to having a structure that's too close to the lot line. It may mean, for example, the subject of minor variances that the owner is being forced to undertake but, at that point, notwithstanding anything that happens, if the mistake was made by the building department, that permit is revoked. It puts the people of this province in a very, very difficult position.

The most difficult issue we had in our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, was the subject of labour regulations -- labour is on my mind, Mr Labour Minister -- the subject of regulations, the expansion of regulations that are not going to be dealt with in this House, the requirements that aren't going to be dealt with in this House. We're going to have regulations which will be put forward without notice at any time, and that whole matter has been expanded substantially as a result of Bill 112.

I must read to you an amendment to one section of the bill. The government would put forward, during the committee, its proposed amendment, which of course carried. They have the majority on the committee and can do anything they wish, notwithstanding the position of the opposition parties. Then they would put the rationale down below.

Certainly, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party had a great deal of difficulty understanding the complexities of some of the amendments, specifically the ones dealing with amendments to section 34, which has to do specifically with all the regulations that can be put out by order in council.

One of the sections they added during the committee hearings was section 6.1. This is one of the areas that can be passed by order in council. It sets forth that they can do this by regulation:

"Setting out rules and policies to be observed in the interpretation of the building code by any person exercising a power or discretion conferred under the act or the building code."

You can say, "What does that mean?" Well, this is what the rationale says. This is the best part of the hearing, when we had this read to us as the reasons for the amendments. I really wish you well if you can follow what I'm about to read to you because, I can tell you, we had a great deal of difficulty understanding what it said. If one can't understand the rationale which explains the amendment, how can one possibly understand the amendment? This is what it says:

"Given the increasing size and complexity of the building code, the fact that it provides no guidance for those persons who are required to apply discretion in making regulatory decisions has proved problematic. As we continue to encourage the industry (designers, manufacturers, builders) to be more innovative, there is a concomitant increase in responsibility placed on those charged with making decisions which require interpretation of the intent of the building code, including the acceptability or sufficiency of compliance regarding proposed 'equivalents' of new materials, products, systems or designs."

Isn't that wonderful? I'll read on, because it gets better:

"Whether a regulator or one of the regulated industry participants, it is important that the regulatory system have the appropriate degree of transparency and hence predictability."

So you've got to be transparent and then you can be predictable. That's what this is saying and that's what the whole purpose of these amendments is: If it's transparent, it'll be predictable.

"The ability of the province to prescribe in the building code criteria for its interpretation will help to achieve this goal and lead to more uniform application of the building code by municipalities."

As a result of the regulations that are going to be passed by Bill 112 and as a result of rationales such as this, building inspectors and people involved in the housing industry, whether they be builders, whether they be people who are suppliers, whether they be contractors, won't know what in the world's going on. They're going to have to take courses. The municipalities are going to have to send the building code people in the municipalities off to school simply to understand what in the heck they're talking about in these regulations. It's just going to be an unbelievable minefield of confusion.

During the hearings, of course, we were told: "There will be consultation. Continuous consultation will take place throughout time as to what changes in the regulations are going to take place." Of course, the whole reason why we went into public hearings is that someone discovered that farmers were all up in the air because they weren't able to use the ungraded lumber from their bush lots to build their outbuildings.

The government said, "Let's go into public hearings and we'll solve all that." Well, we got to public hearings and the minister had a press release, along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and he and she said on July 30: "Farmers who have traditionally used lumber from local bush lots to build farm buildings will be able to resume the practice under changes to the Ontario Building Code." This is the announcement of the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

1540

Then we get to the hearings and wait anxiously for an amendment which is going to come forward in Bill 112. The parliamentary assistant is shaking her head. I'd like to read what she said. "In consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, we're clarifying the provision in the building code concerning the use of ungraded lumber." I have yet to see the regulation. This promise has been made. It's as if: "Trust us. We're going to deal with it."

They say they're not going to do it, but we have yet to see the regulation. When are they going to consult with the farmers of this province? When are they going to consult with the opposition parties? When are they going to consult with other people involved in the industry? We don't know, but we do know that the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture and Food are clarifying it, although they won't tell us exactly when or what that's going to do.

That whole process of consultation gives me great concern, because I understand that there are many regulations that perhaps shouldn't go into the bill. You can't debate every regulation that comes out. But the whole process is flawed. We were assured that this type of regulation would have been dealt with by the regulation under the consultation process. It fell through the cracks in the boards. They somehow missed it. Hence we had public hearings which cost the taxpayers of this province thousands of dollars. We never did debate it. We never yet have seen the regulation. It was simply announced that they're clarifying it.

The process, as I understand it, that came forward at the hearings was that the Ontario Building Code is based on the national building code, and that's revised every five years. The Ontario code is then set up for changes. This has been going on since the 1970s. The Ontario code is then set up for changes on a two-year cycle. Then there are three or five committees which are set up to review the code and develop the proposed regulatory changes. The bureaucracy sinks me. It overwhelms me when I read this stuff, but this is what I learned at these hearings.

Then the proposed changes are consolidated into a brief, booklike document which is distributed to the parties likely to be most affected by the changes: the architectural offices, the engineering offices and the construction association, as well as any party that requests the information. Then the ministry goes out on the road and holds seminars across the province to discuss these changes and ask for citizen and group feedback to the proposed changes. Then the recommendations are put back to the minister.

When all the input has been received, the minister, on the advice and information gathered, then decides on what the changes will be. There's no question that many of the changes are technical and will attract very little media attention, but that seems to be the process. The use of ungraded lumber in farm buildings certainly attracted some attention, and that's why we got into the public hearings of Bill 112. That's why I suppose I asked the question, how did we miss that, and what others are we going to miss?

Hence the flaw of the process of amending the building code, setting up little rules that no one knows about, by regulation. It's now going to consist of volumes and volumes of rules that you're going to need experts to talk to the builders about. They're going to have to have consultants and they're going to have to pay people. They're going to have to pay these consultants to advise them on how to put forward all these things. Meanwhile, it won't be the province of Ontario, although it's creating these things, there's a whole bureaucracy that's creating this massive stuff. That's going to then go to the building departments around this province. Who pays for that? The answer is, the municipalities. They're the ones that pay for all this.

Again I get back to the whole process of downloading. It's a very serious position when you put forward these policies, you expand the regulations, you make them completely unbearable and the municipalities have to administer them. It puts the municipalities of this province in a very, very difficult situation. The Urban Development Institute also commented on that, which was subsection 34(2). They said the regulations "establishing standards of maintenance, occupancy and repair" of existing buildings as an occupancy code is a good idea. The problem is that such standards will exist side by side with all the other occupancy standards the municipalities pass under the Planning Act, or in the case of a number of a cities, including Toronto and Ottawa, under special legislation. In other words, we're going to have different sets of rules: We're going to have the municipal rules and then we're going to have the provincial rules. The building inspectors in this province are going to be completely overwhelmed, as will be the builders. It puts us all in a very difficult position.

The most damning comments as to the building code with respect to these regulations came from one of the delegations, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. I think it becomes clear that this is the real reason why this package of the building code was changed from Liberal Bill 103, I think it was, to the current Bill 112 of the NDP. It has been changed so that it meets with the elaboration of rent control.

You ask, is that possible? Yes, it's possible. I'll tell you what's happened. Bill 121 and the retroactive Bill 4 set forth that you can only raise your rents by a certain percentage. Bill 112 says that existing buildings must meet certain standards, and they're going to come through regulation, which will be changed from time to time without debate and without the knowledge of the owners of buildings. They won't be able to plan for those changes; they won't be able to set aside reserves.

All of a sudden these regulations are going to appear before us, and the owners won't have the financial resources to meet them. At the same time, they're going to be tied down by the rent control legislation that says you can only raise rents by a certain percentage. The squeeze is on. The squeeze of the ownership of these buildings is on.

There's no question that Bob Rae, the Premier of this province, with his comments before he got elected that he intends to take over the housing industry of this province and make it all public housing, is on schedule. It's another brick that's being laid, this Bill 112, which is going to put the squeeze on the landlords and the owners of the buildings of this province. If the landlords and the owners haven't had a look at this bill, I think they'd better take a long, hard look at it because it's going to have serious repercussions with respect to them.

Fair Rental made some interesting comments, which I'd like to refer to. They state, "As set out in subsection 34(2), these regulation-making powers could apply to any of the 28 areas delineated for new buildings in subsection 34(1), including such matters as standards for plumbing and venting systems or the types of materials which must be used in a building, establishing standards for maintenance and repair and prescribing standards for resource conservation and environmental protection."

Fair Rental talks about three major problems with this proposal, from the perspective of the rental housing sector. Again, as you're listening to this, keep in mind what I believe this government's trying to do. I believe they're planning to put their thumb on private enterprise, the people who own the buildings in this province, and put them out of business; put the squeeze on them and put them out of business. I think we saw it with Bill 4, we saw it with Bill 121 and we're seeing it again with Bill 112 with respect to these regulations.

"First, it duplicates existing standards at the municipal and provincial levels;

"Second, it adds greater uncertainty to the operating environment for rental buildings and risks the implementation of new standards with no public debate; and

"Third, it is being proposed at the worst possible time" -- and I think this is the main issue we should be looking at. The written submission from Fair Rental, which is dated September 3, 1992, goes on -- "as landlords strive to absorb the blows dealt by the retroactive application of Bill 4, the 1990 rent freeze legislation, and the recent proclamation of Bill 121, the Rent Control Act, 1992."

1550

They then go into some of the areas of these regulations which give them specific concerns. The first is duplication, and I've referred somewhat to that. They point out that:

"In more than 430 municipalities in the province, including all those of significant size and covering well over 90% of the rental housing stock, property standards bylaws have been passed pursuant to either the Planning Act or the special legislation for cities like Ottawa and Toronto. Where municipalities do not have their own standard, the provincial minimum standard applies."

Who says that standards in the city of Toronto are going to be the same as those in Thunder Bay, in Windsor, in Niagara Falls, or other areas around this province? Who says we're all the same? Who says that the requirements are going to be all the same throughout the province of Ontario? The municipalities have different bylaws, different rules that are being set forward, and this bill is simply going to create absolute havoc in the building business. The report goes on:

"As an organization" -- this is Fair Rental -- "we have heard no suggestion that these local standards are suffering widespread deficiencies or are in need of replacement." During the hearings, we heard no complaints that what standards we have now around the province are deficient. In other words, none of the municipalities came forward, or none of the residents from municipalities came forward and issued any comment with respect to deficiencies. "In many cases, the municipal standards have higher order requirements than the provincial standard. The fact that municipal property standards vary to some degree is not unreasonable given the huge differences between regions of the province and the diverse requirements of municipalities which might have 2,000 residents or two million."

Of course municipalities of 2,000 are going to have different requirements than a municipality of two million. Of course they are. Why is this province trying to make us all the same and make the municipalities pay for it? They're putting regulations on municipalities that they don't even want. Many of the municipalities in this province don't want these because they don't require them. In many of them, they do.

In other words, I'm saying that Bill 112, the philosophy behind it, which is a complete botch of Bill 103, was needed. But you blew it. You put forward proposals that really would have been quite adequate as expressed in Bill 103. But for some reason, I believe you're considering rent control -- you're considering your socialistic and your crazy fiscal policies with respect to Bill 112.

The subject of uncertainty is also dealt with by Fair Rental. It was said during the hearings and is made in the written submissions that: "It is one thing for cabinet to propose a change in a specific aspect of the existing building code regulation; it is quite another to propose a whole new set of regulations, which for the first time will apply to existing buildings, without any requirement that the Legislature or the public be consulted." This whole issue was the very issue that seemed to create the most objection of the entire hearings, and it has not been addressed in amendment by the government during the hearings or in this House.

The report goes on to say, "The greater the uncertainty, the less business people are able to plan investments, for they never know how requirements may be changed in the future." I spent some time on that. Obviously, if new concrete garages or new brickwork or a new roof or new requirements are needed for an apartment building, the landlord or the owner of the building puts reserves aside or tries to prepare for that. But if all of a sudden, out of the blue, this government or its bureaucrats decide to write a little regulation and not tell anybody about it, what are they going to do? How are they going to pay for it? Where is the money going to come from?

In these terrible times, the value of buildings has gone down, and we've now put a freeze on rents, so they can't get money from any other sources. Where's the money going to come from?

The answer is, they're going to have applications from tenants. Because Bill 112 isn't being complied with, rents are going to go down. It's going to put the owners of buildings in an even worse situation, and on top of that, these problems won't even be rectified. They won't get rectified.

Who's going to pay for it? You? The government? Are you going to pay for it? Is that the real plan, that you plan to take over the housing industry? Was Bob Rae, when he made his comments as opposition leader in that famous, terrible interview where he said he was going to take over the housing industry, all the housing industry was going to become public and the government was going to own everything -- socialism in the extreme, and it gives private enterprise, the business community in this province, grave concerns.

Further with the written report to the committee from Fair Rental:

"When, under Bill 121, a landlord has only a 3% allowance above the annual rent increase guideline available to fund capital improvements, this uncertainty is further heightened. If a decision is made that garbage repair work must be done to satisfy safety requirements, thus using up the 3% allowance for each of the next three years, how then can an owner implement the required changes if a new code for existing buildings is brought in a year later?"

That's the problem. On the one hand, let's say the government passes a regulation and says, "We're going to have to have some sort of garage repair work and that's got to be done," and then a year later it comes through with something else, where's the money going to come from? From up above? Where's it going to come from? You people aren't going to give it; you're broke. Where's it going to come from?

The owners of the buildings of this province and the landlords are really, really concerned as to where you're going, and it gets back to the overall continual package, brick by brick, of the destruction of the housing industry in this province.

Fair Rental then gets into the subject of timing in its submission:

"There could be no worse possible timing for considering changes which will impose further costs on the rental housing sector. The industry in Ontario is already reeling from the combined effects of the recession and the draconian provisions of Bill 121."

They're trying to figure out how to keep their heads above water. Bill 121 and Bill 4 have really created havoc with them. Aside from the whole subject of the recession, the housing industry is in deep trouble in this province. Why would you put this sort of thing on them at this particular time? How are they going to make it through? You're making it worse and worse and worse.

I again emphasize, if you own a building or if you're a landlord in the province of Ontario, take a look at what Bill 112 is going to do to you, because it's going to give you grave concerns.

The report goes on, "Over the next several years, building owners will be faced with the necessity to absorb huge losses as a result of capital expenditures caught by Bill 4 which will never be recovered."

Remember Bill 4? Bill 4 was retroactive, and it said you had to do all these things and couldn't recover them. Don't ever forget Bill 4. It's a dastardly bill, and it drove a nail into several of the arms of the landlords of this province.

The report goes on:

"Financial losses for which recovery allowed under the old Bill 51 rules has now been wiped out; the threat of tenant applications to reduce rent on the grounds of 'inadequate maintenance,' a term which has never been defined" -- "inadequate maintenance" has never been defined. Maybe it's going to come through the back door in this strange set of regulations Bill 112 has. Maybe we're going to find something there. We still don't know what "inadequate maintenance" is under Bill 121 -- "and against which, therefore, there can be no assured defence; forthcoming changes to the fire code which will require retrofit costing an average $500 to $600 per unit;..."

This is what the owners of residential buildings are being put up to by this government. This is only part of it. This is part of the overall package, and you have to look at the overall package.

They are also being asked, the report says, for "mandatory recycling in buildings, even where there is no municipal garbage collection." Can you imagine? We're going to have mandatory recycling in buildings even though there is no municipal garbage collection. Who's going to pay for that? Who's going to pay for all this stuff? Then it goes on "and a host of other costs." The report goes on, "To add the further threat of a code for existing buildings with completely unknown compliance costs is both unreasonable and unnecessary."

1600

Finally, I will just refer to a couple of other passages in the Fair report which express their concerns, "If a code for existing buildings is to be regulated" -- as this will with respect to Bill 112 -- "it must be done in conjunction with the elimination of the restrictive capital provisions of Bill 121," otherwise Bill 112 negates Bill 121, both bills negate each other, and that is a concern of Fair.

Our party put forward an amendment which was rejected by the government. That amendment stated that there should be a separate amending bill which would be brought forward with the accompanying code in the form of draft regulations, and in that way, all these problems would be addressed. All these problems would be dealt with ahead of time, and we'd be able to look at the repercussions they would have ahead of time. All the interested parties, the stakeholders -- this favoured word that's coming into this House in the last number of months -- would be able to participate.

The stakeholders aren't having much say in Bill 112. They're having no say in Bill 112, because the regulations are burning the stakeholders at the stake, so that --

Ms Harrington: Ah.

Mr Tilson: That's exactly what's happened. "In that way," Fair concludes, "it will be possible for all parties to weigh the costs and benefits of the specific code provisions and reach a considered decision."

I will agree with the Liberal critic on one factor, that certainly the amendments to the building code were long overdue. But our party, as I have put forward this afternoon and during the committee hearings, has grave concerns. We have grave concerns that by trying to solve one problem, they're going to create a whole host of other problems. So I hope that members of the government will take a long look at Bill 112 before this is finally passed into law.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions and/or comments?

Ms Harrington: I would like to thank Mr Tilson for bringing forward very clearly that there are substantial changes in Bill 112 from Bill 103. It is certainly a bill that our government is very proud of.

Secondly, I thought he read the rationale very well for paragraph 34(1)6.1. He made it quite clear how important it is that the chief building officials and inspectors have guidance, and that's exactly what the intent of that section was.

Being on the municipal council in Niagara Falls, I certainly am very sensitive to the issue of downloading to municipalities. I find it very much of an exaggeration to say the number of building officials will explode. We are dealing with realities here, and that certainly is not the case.

He also brought up the problem of the ungraded lumber regulation. This was created by the previous Liberal government, and it was solved by us. I think you could ask any farmer across Ontario. This is not a problem. We have solved this problem.

This shows how important it is to work together, to find practical solutions that make sense to people. I would like to invite all those who are involved -- as Mr Tilson has pointed out, they're called stakeholders, but really we're talking about the home builders, the building officials and all the professionals involved -- to now start the process with the ministry of looking at the regulations that make sense for this province.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, would the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel take two minutes in response.

Mr Tilson: I think all of us in this House will agree the building inspectors do need guidance, you're absolutely right, and they need rules. I think that the home builders, the people who are building our homes, the people who are building our apartments, the people who are building all of our housing in this province, whether it be for the new plans you have for accessory apartments or granny flats or apartment buildings or non-profit housing, all those things need guidance.

The difficulty is, when are we going to get the guidance? All of a sudden, out of the blue there'll be no consultation, no announcement; it'll just be produced. We'll get a letter from them saying, "This is this."

We have established with the ungraded lumber proposal that your consultation process does not work. Otherwise, you wouldn't be in the mess that you are in today. It never would have happened. That's an example of why the consultation process didn't work. If you have one example, you're going to have 10 more.

As far as your putting out press releases and saying that the ungraded lumber problem has been solved is concerned, I have yet to see a regulation. All I hear is the parliamentary assistant making statements in this House and committee saying, "We've solved the problem," yet the regulations haven't even been introduced. There are no regulations. She's clarifying the position, that's all she's doing, so the problem is still there.

I really challenge her on continually coming to this House and to committee and saying, "We're solving the problem." You're not solving the problem. If you are, when are you going to give us the regulation? When are you going to tell us? All you're saying is: "Trust us. We're going to solve this problem."

So again, I believe all of us in this House should treat this bill with great caution.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, would the honourable parliamentary assistant wish to make some final comments?

Ms Harrington: Mr Speaker, I think I have already concluded, thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Ms Harrington has moved third reading of Bill 112. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried. Resolved that the bill do now pass as in the motion.

PARKING INFRACTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS DE STATIONNEMENT

Mr Hampton moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions / Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infractions provinciales et le Code de la route en ce qui concerne les infractions de stationnement.

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): Today I have the pleasure of bringing to the House for second reading the Parking Infractions Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992. Members will recall that this bill replaces part II of the Provincial Offences Act dealing with parking offences.

The bill will reduce significantly the likelihood that people will be convicted of parking offences because of wrongful identification. It does this by requiring the prosecuting authority, usually a municipality, to send to people who have not responded in some way to a ticket, a notice called a "notice of impending conviction." This notice is sent to the owner of the licence plate shown on the ticket. If the owner claims he or she has no knowledge of the ticket and could not have committed the offence, for example, because he or she was not in the ticketing city at the time of the offence, then he or she can call up the municipality and explain this.

In most cases, the municipality will drop the charge. If the claim of innocence is not believed, then the owner will be able to request a trial and tell it to a justice of the peace. Either case avoids the present unpleasant situation where an innocent person first hears of an alleged offence when he or she gets a notice of conviction.

1610

In addition, we propose that the regulations under the act will require municipalities to note on the ticket the renewal month of the licence plate. This date can be checked against the birthdate of the owner on the Ministry of Transportation records that the municipality gets to send out its notices. If they do not match, then there has almost certainly been a misidentification.

Bill 25 also streamlines the process for dealing with people who do not respond to parking tickets. Across the province, about half the people ticketed pay immediately and about 5% plead not guilty and request a trial. The other 45% do nothing. At present, the tickets of this last group are presented to a justice of the peace along with proof of ownership of the ticketed car. The justice of the peace will convict the person if the documents are complete and regular on their face. Under Bill 25, the municipality will certify that the tickets are complete and regular on their face and request the conviction. The clerk of the court will then enter a conviction. This will save time and money, as the tickets and ownership documents will not need to be filed in court at all.

The bill provides a new method to challenge a conviction under the new procedure. A person convicted may take the ticket to a justice of the peace. If the justice of the peace finds the ticket not to be complete and regular on its face, then the justice of the peace can quash the conviction. In addition, the municipality that requested the conviction, based on the defective ticket, will have to pay the person $25. This will be an incentive to the municipality to screen out the defective tickets before requesting convictions from the court.

The bill also provides a new, fast way for municipalities to appeal convictions. If a person can persuade the municipality that he or she should not have been convicted, the municipality itself can now look after the matter and save the person the time and effort of dealing with the courts. Once the fine is levied, it must be collected. At present, the court officers send out notices of fines to the people convicted. If the fines are not paid, a justice of the peace will make an order that the Ministry of Transportation should not renew the person's licence plate until the fine is paid.

Some municipalities can probably collect fines more effectively and faster than this on their own. Bill 25 allows them to take over the file after the fine is levied, to send out the notice of fine in due date and to collect the fines as they would any other debt. They will be able to send any outstanding fines back to the Ministry of the Attorney General for plate denial if they remain unable to collect the fines. The ministry will be able to refer the unpaid fines to the Ministry of Transportation without an order of a justice of the peace at this stage in order to save further time.

I want to emphasize that municipalities that wish to leave fine collection to the court officers will have every right to do so. Some press stories have suggested that the government was going to force municipalities to take over fine collection. This is not the case.

In short, Bill 25 will serve the public by reducing as much as possible convictions based on wrongful identification. It will serve the municipalities by improving their cash flow and reducing the paper to be transmitted to the courts. It will serve the court offices by reducing the incoming paper. Finally, it will serve both municipalities and courts by letting the former take over collection work from the latter as the municipalities will put a high priority on collecting fines payable to themselves and the courts will be free for work more important to the province.

I remind the House that the bill has the approval of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is particularly enthusiastic about it. I ask that the members of the House join in supporting this useful measure.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): I wish to thank the Attorney General. Questions and/or comments on the Attorney General's participation? Seeing none, further debate?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Right off the top, I want to say that we will be supporting this particular initiative. However, we have several reservations and several comments to make with respect to its introduction and the timing of its introduction.

First of all, I want to indicate that it would appear to me that this initiative came forward around the time that the whole issue of parking tickets was of some concern to this government. I think if we reflect back on the former Solicitor General, Mr Farnan, from Cambridge, we'll recall that some of his staff apparently sent letters to various court officials concerning improper tickets and fines that emanated from the tickets. That was a symptom of a system that simply, absolutely, was not working. The government reacted in terms of timing after that particular incident.

Mr Mike Farnan (Cambridge): You understand that now.

Mr Chiarelli: Yes. The member for Cambridge says, "You understand that now." I say to the member for Cambridge, isn't it surprising and amazing that the government initiated this particular legislation when that type of incident started to come to the fore? It did not have enough grasp of the ministry and the nature of the problems within the court system to understand that it should initiate it before a crisis comes forward on the government's desk.

That, as a matter of fact, is what is very common in the Ministry of the Attorney General. What we see is a reactive ministry and a reactive minister who reacts after a crisis has developed, and we see it on a whole range of issues, which we won't go into today. However, it does kind of underline why the minister has the nickname of the Minister of Inertia.

However, I will say that we do support it because it's going to help clean up part of a mess that's in the system of issuing tickets and fines and convictions in the province. But I do want to say to the minister, and I do want to say to municipalities that may be considering taking up this new option, that they have to make a very important business decision before they jump into this new system, because those people who don't respond to a ticket, or those people who are improperly ticketed and don't know anything about it, represent between two million and three million people a year in Ontario.

Under this new system, potentially the municipalities would be sending each one of these people a notice that the municipality does not now send. If you look at just the cost of postage to send these notices to between two million and three million people a year, you're looking at $1 million in postage. That's just the 42-cent stamp that you have to put on the envelopes to mail to these people. It represents a type of offloading to the municipality, just on the price of postage, of somewhere in the vicinity of $1 million. That's to say nothing about the cost of administration: the staffing, the cost of the envelopes, the cost of the information technology and computers that municipalities will have to get involved in in order to gain this revenue from the fines.

In each instance a municipality will have to be very careful before it takes up this particular plan. It may be all right for the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, which has a large infrastructure and a large population base so that it can generate some economies of scale. But with respect to smaller municipalities, this may not be an advantage, and therefore this legislation may not appeal to them at all. In fact, as the minister said, this really is of importance to Metropolitan Toronto, and that may very well be the case; probably is the case. Again, perhaps the Ministry of the Attorney General should be looking at an alternative system or improving the existing system for those smaller municipalities that cannot opt into this, because it doesn't make financial sense to gear up and send out notices and have an administrative staff and so forth.

While it may be important for Metropolitan Toronto, and it's obviously advantageous to Metropolitan Toronto, it is definitely not certain that it will be an advantage to the smaller municipalities. As I said, if this thing were taken to its conclusion, and all the municipalities took it up, there would be over $1 million in postage alone that the municipalities would be taking on.

1620

So I would simply say a word of caution to smaller municipalities as to whether or not this is going to really assist their cash flow.

I think that the minister, as well, should look at whether or not some changes could be made in the provincial system should a municipality want to opt into the existing system to improve it for those municipalities that can't get the economies of scale.

There is another thing I want to point out in terms of a reservation with respect to this legislation. I want to read the compendium for this legislation. One part of it indicates, "As a further safeguard for the person convicted, the new bill eliminates the possibility that a sentence of imprisonment for a fine default may be ordered at the time the fine is imposed." It goes on to say, "An opportunity for a separate hearing must be offered after the default before an order for imprisonment may be made."

What the Ministry of the Attorney General is saying and what the Ministry of the Attorney General is doing is continuing the possibility of incarcerating people for non-payment of traffic fines, traffic convictions. In my opinion, that is unacceptable.

As a matter of fact, it's unacceptable to the government, because we have on record Hansard, which I will refer to, going back to November 5, 1991. At that particular point in time the Attorney General was moving second reading of Bill 76, An Act to repeal the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act. Basically, what that bill did was eliminate the possibility of debtors' prison. In other words, there was legislation on the books that permitted the courts in Ontario to imprison people for not paying a civil debt.

At that particular point, I raised with the Attorney General -- I'll refer to Hansard. I'm quoting myself, so there's a great authority here:

"We certainly support this bill and see nothing objectionable in it" -- I was referring to the Fraudulent Debtors Arrest Act, the abolition of that particular bill -- "with a couple of riders. First of all, it should be known that if the Attorney General is going to address the issue of the citizens of Ontario being put in jail for what amounts to debts, I think the Attorney General should give some consideration to the reality that is happening out there in Ontario whereby people with unpaid parking tickets, which is basically a debt to a municipality or to a particular ministry, are in fact still being put in jail for non-payment of these fines, which are debts. They are basically being put in jail for what amounts to minor debts. In some cases it is for two, three and four days.

"I think it is important the Attorney General look at the whole area of imprisonment for minor infractions and minor offences, particularly those relating to debts."

The Attorney General responded to my comments. As I say, that was on November 5, 1991. Basically, he said:

"The member for Ottawa West asked -- or made comments to the effect -- what are we doing to deal with issues of incarceration with respect to minor offences like municipal bylaws and the Highway Traffic Act etc. I am happy to tell him that we have been working on this issue since early this year and we will be bringing forward some legislation, I hope, this fall" -- referring to 1991 -- "if the schedule permits. That should interest him a great deal."

What does interest me is that this is additional evidence that the nickname Minister of Inertia is quite appropriate, because here we have in November 1991 the minister saying, "We will be introducing legislation to deal with this issue, hopefully this fall." We haven't seen anything about it. We haven't heard anything about it. There's nothing on the books that we can see at this particular point in time. And the minister, having said that in November 1991, is in here today saying he is continuing incarceration for parking offences. It's very symptomatic of the whole problem in the administration of justice in Ontario: They take a little bit here, they take a little bit there, they do a lot of little things. Nothing's connected and there is no agenda.

One of the problems we have in our system of justice in Ontario is in the corrections system, where there are tremendous numbers of people who are taking up space and consuming a lot of Ontario budget dollars in our institutions. A lot of those people are there for non-payment of fines that have been ordered by the courts, some of them still in fact for non-payment of parking fines, for convictions for parking. It just doesn't make sense. There are alternative ways to deal with these issues short of putting people in jail. I see the new corrections minister eyeing this particular issue. It's a matter that is very important and that we have to deal with, and we have to deal with it soon.

The Solicitor General is there nodding his head yes, but on the other hand, if we look at the compendium for this legislation dealing with parking tickets, it says that it is continuing -- "An opportunity for a separate hearing must be offered after the default before an order for imprisonment be made." We have legislation coming forward which permits the ordering of people to be imprisoned or put into provincial institutions for non-payment of fines, parking ticket convictions.

I can recall quite clearly, when we were in government, attending a briefing that was sponsored by the then corrections minister. He had his deputy minister and senior officials in the briefing session. One of the issues then with the Liberal government at that time was that there were too many people taking up space in our provincial institutions for non-payment of fines. The cost to the province of Ontario for that is absolutely insane and unconscionable. People have been talking about it for a long time -- it goes back to the previous government -- and we still see inertia; we don't even see talk about it with this government.

I'm simply saying to the new corrections minister and to the Attorney General, who are here, that I wish they would put some framework in the whole justice area. There needs to be some kind of anchor. There need to be some beacons out there for the lawyers, for the corrections people, for our advocates in our society to understand where the system is going, how it is coming together. What we do see is ad hockery.

I'm not saying that the particular pieces of legislation that are introduced are bad. As I said, we're supporting this legislation with some reservations, one of the reservations being that it still permits incarceration of people for parking offences. I'm saying that it doesn't make sense to be passing a new law setting this out at the same time that the corrections ministry is probably looking at removing this provision. There are many cases in this government in the administration of justice where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing.

I hope, as I've said before -- and it's in Hansard -- that the new Deputy Minister of the Attorney General will be able to provide that anchor for the administration of justice in the province of Ontario. We're dealing on an ad hoc basis with legal aid; we're dealing on an ad hoc basis with parking tickets; we're dealing on an ad hoc basis with many, many issues.

I would say in conclusion that we support this legislation, with the reservation that it ought not to continue the provision to incarcerate people for parking offences and with the reservation that this type of legislation and this type of issue should not be brought forward to this House or to the people of Ontario without being put in some framework within some greater policy area. I haven't seen it, the legal profession hasn't seen it, and it's about time that the Ministry of the Attorney General starts talking about overall policy and putting these initiatives within some policy framework.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Thank you very much. Questions and/or comments? Seeing none, further debate?

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I'm pleased to rise to very briefly discuss Bill 25, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions. May I say at the beginning that I'm quite happy with the pace at which the Attorney General's moving and at which his department is producing legislation, because if he keeps going slow, we're going to have a lot less to undo later on. So I'm quite frankly very pleased at the speed with which he moves.

But at any rate, let's deal with Bill 25. This is a very unique bill in the New Democrat tradition, because this is probably the first and only bill that I've seen where somebody is going to benefit. The municipalities are going to get a whole lot of money if this is implemented -- and I'm pleased it's going to be implemented -- and it's not going to cost anything. That's the most amazing thing about this piece of legislation: The municipalities are going to benefit and it's not going to cost them anything. Their taxes are not going up and nobody's downloading on them. This is not in the tradition of NDP legislation to date. I think it has that to commend it.

As I understand it, there are huge numbers of unpaid parking tickets currently in Metropolitan Toronto, where I understand about 75% of all parking infractions occur. I understand in fact that between $35 and $50 million remains outstanding in unpaid fines. If you take 75% of that as being from Metropolitan Toronto, that is money that can be used, particularly at these critical times. I'm very pleased that the Attorney General has brought this piece of legislation forward.

The other thing I might add is that I think this bill can be commended because it ensures that those who receive infractions will have their rights protected. If anything, the ministry has gone overboard to ensure that their rights have not been taken away. They're being given about three chances to plead to one offence and defend themselves, so that nobody is losing any rights by the implementation of this bill.

As I understand it, you'll get your ticket, you'll have the opportunity to plead not guilty and send it in, you'll then have an opportunity to receive a court date and you'll then have the opportunity to attend and plead your case before the court or the clerk. Nobody's rights are being taken away. If anything, those who ignore tickets are going to be reminded that there's a ticket outstanding and be given the opportunity to ensure that they can come and plead their case. I'm pleased about that.

In addition, one of the very difficult aspects about parking tickets is that because there are so many thousands of parking tickets issued, obviously there are going to be a great many mistakes in terms of processing them, starting at the period when the parking ticket is issued and signed, continuing right through until the date in court. I think this has a great deal to commend it.

It bears repeating what the position of the Metropolitan Toronto government is on this bill. Metro Chairman Alan Tonks has stated that Metro will be able to collect more money with increased speed under this new system, even if it has to pay some increase in administration of the new system. Mike Friendrick of the department of transportation, city of North York, an area I have the privilege of representing, has stated that he believes the legislation is long overdue and will go a long way to improving the efficiency and reliability of fine collection.

I know a couple of amendments are going to be introduced today. I think they're worthy of consideration because they'll help make this bill work. I would ask that in future, if the Attorney General does have amendments, he could provide us with some idea of what they are, rather than sending us a letter on the day that he's introducing them. However, they are simple and I believe we can handle them today.

I don't wish to belabour any further discussion on this. I think it should become law as fast as possible and I'm going to support it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Just a quick point with respect to this issue and parking infractions and speeding tickets and so on in Metropolitan Toronto. Having sat on that council for a number of years, I'm quite certain that the quotes attributed to the Metro chairman and probably a number of other councillors on council itself are fairly accurate.

Let me just say that it seems to me, in dealing with this issue on an ongoing basis, that I have specifically two concerns, not specific to the legislation but something that always strikes me as odd. My complaint at Metro level is that there's always capacity at those levels of government and this to speed up any process that generates them revenue. There's very little difficulty in getting parking officers or policemen approved and deployed because they're revenue generators.

It's always been a pet peeve of mine, it's sort of a burr under the saddle, that there's little difficulty in councils endorsing parking control officers and policemen to give parking tickets and there's always a tremendous amount of cooperation between both levels of government, provincially and municipally, to speed up the process to get people to pay their parking tickets and pay them promptly to generate revenue for the coffers of municipalities. Having said that, it strikes me as odd that there are always enough police officers and parking control officers to do just that, and officers who are enforcing speed traps that generally are positioned in unusual areas that generate revenue for municipalities.

I know it's not something that would offer a rationale or a reason to not support this kind of legislation. The point I want to make to the Attorney General is that there seems to be so much support, negotiation and speed to get people to generate more revenue for government, but on other important issues in policing in Metropolitan Toronto there seems to be very little support, very little negotiation and very little speed with which these systems can be handled, and I speak about break and enters.

One of the big complaints in my riding is all the break and enters that are taking place, and they're up substantially. In some instances, it's been reported to me, and maybe I'm wrong and the Attorney General can check it out, the police in Metropolitan Toronto don't even get to your house for 24 hours if you've had a break and enter. They can't get to your door to find out what the incident is with respect to a break and enter. There's a whole series of policing problems and concerns that people in my neighbourhood have.

Probably one of the fewest complaints I get is about the speed with which you have to pay your parking tickets or how come you can't collect your money faster so you can get it into the government quicker. But that always seems to be something that all governments can get together on and work out rules and tighten up legislation to make people pay more money quicker so they can generate revenue that they can spend.

I don't want to suggest that this isn't good. People who get parking tickets should have to pay them and people who get speeding tickets should have to pay them and they shouldn't get off the hook. But I would like to note that it seems this kind of thing can happen very quickly, cooperatively, without any difficulty and a lot of the issues that my constituents come to me with can't seem to be addressed.

I wish that with the same cooperation we have between municipal governments and provincial governments with respect to parking tickets and speed of payment and revenue generators, we could also see the same with respect to break and enters and car thefts and so on that don't seem to get the same kind of attention as something that generates revenue.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments? Further debate? Seeing none, would the Attorney General have a summation?

1640

Hon Mr Hampton: Yes, Mr Speaker. First of all, allow me to say to all of the members that I appreciate their contribution and I appreciate their willingness to deal with this bill in a relatively speedy fashion.

Let me respond just to a couple of the concerns that were raised by members opposite. First of all, I believe the member for Ottawa West raised the question of, will people be jailed for parking tickets? I can tell the member for Ottawa West that our information from officials is that over the last three years, at least since the Provincial Offences Act, part II has been in force, we are not aware of anyone being jailed for failure to pay parking tickets. If he has some information of someone who has, I'd very much appreciate receiving that information so that we could check into it.

The fact of the matter is that almost all of these matters are now dealt with by way of flat denial, so I don't think that is a real problem. However, I can tell the member that we were advised that municipalities would like to have this option in the bill simply as the ultimate means of dealing with someone who ignores a number of tickets and simply does not respond. So while I can tell him that he may have a legitimate theoretical concern, I don't believe he has a legitimate practical concern.

Second, the member raised the issue that this will cost municipalities a great deal of money. I want to inform him that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the larger municipalities, including the municipality he resides in, that of Ottawa, very much support not only the intent of the legislation but the structures that will operate under it. In fact the city of Ottawa already sends out notices of impending conviction so as to simplify and further the efficiency of its procedures. So while he may have some concerns, it is our understanding that municipalities are very much in favour.

Finally, let me say to him, if he feels that some things are moving too slowly, I only want to remind him that since we became the government, we had a serious backlog situation in the criminal courts that we've had to deal with, some backlogs at the Ontario Municipal Board that we've had to deal with, some backlogs at the assessment appeal board that we've had to deal with and some backlogs with respect to parking tickets that we've had to deal with. Since those were left over for us to deal with, we think we've got those under control now and we can move on with our agenda, rather than cleaning up the agenda that was left to us from the former government.

To the member for Willowdale, who says he appreciates that the pace of change is not moving too quickly, I can say that having had many debates with members from his party in the past, we don't want to move it along too quickly, because we want to ensure that they're able to take part in the debate, and if we do move too quickly, that might limit their capacity to get involved in the debate.

In any case, I appreciate the helpful comments made by the members opposite, and I appreciate their willingness to move this bill speedily through the House.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Hampton has moved second reading of Bill 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Mr Hampton: Committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: The Attorney General, committee of the whole.

Orders of the day. The honourable member for Niagara South.

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): The 22nd order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): The 22nd order, for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): No, we're supposed to go into committee of the whole. Shirley, just take us back.

Hon Mr Hampton: Just to clarify, we're asking for unanimous consent for Bill 25 to now move to committee of the whole.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for Bill 25 to move into committee of the whole? Agreed.

House in committee of the whole.

The Second Deputy Chair (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now proceed to comments or any changes to any sections of the bill. The Attorney General.

Hon Mr Hampton: The government would like to amend Bill 25 in two small details. The first deals with filing requests for trial and the second is a transition.

The Second Deputy Chair: Which section would that be?

Hon Mr Hampton: The first amendment is a motion to amend subsection 1(1) of the bill, which is subsection 17(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

The Second Deputy Chair: Would the Attorney General have copies of his amendments that could help us all here?

The Attorney General may proceed now by identifying which section of the bill is being amended, then proceed with a description of the amendment and then we will have debate.

Hon Mr Hampton: The first amendment deals with subsection 1(1) of the bill, which is subsection 17(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

I move that subsection 17(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Proceeding commenced

"(2) If the defendant pleads not guilty, a proceeding may be commenced in respect of the charge if it is done within seventy-five days after the day the alleged infraction occurred."

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Would the Attorney General want to provide the House with some explanation?

Hon Mr Hampton: I would. The explanation I'm going to provide deals not only with this amendment but with the amendment which is to follow directly, the amendment to subsection 1(1) of the bill, subsection 18.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act.

Essentially the bill as introduced requires that requests for trial for parking offences be submitted to the courts within 45 days, or within 30 days of the time when the requests are delivered to the municipality, up to a total of 75 days from the day the ticket was issued. This was an attempt to ensure that trials were scheduled at an early date. However, in practice this means that all the records of parking tickets will have to be screened for trial requests twice or even three times before they are filed with the court. Municipalities with a high volume of tickets will find this onerous.

As a result, we are proposing that requests for trial be subject to the same filing deadline as other tickets: a flat 75 days from the date of the alleged offence. We do not believe the optional additional 30 days will create undue delay. Of course, municipalities are not required to wait for the full 75 days and we expect most to file all their requests in less time.

1650

This one change requires two amendments to the bill: the amendment we are dealing with at this time and the amendment we will deal with directly after we finish with this first amendment.

The Second Deputy Chair: Any further amendments or comments emanating from the Attorney General's comments?

Are we ready for the question? Shall the amendment carry? Carried.

The Attorney General has a further amendment to subsection 1(1) of the bill. Could he please proceed with that one.

Hon Mr Hampton: I move that subsection 18.1(2) of the Provincial Offences Act, as set out in subsection 1(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Proceeding commenced

"(2) If the defendant pleads not guilty after a notice of impending conviction has been given, a proceeding may be commenced in respect of the charge if it is done within seventy-five days after the day the alleged infraction occurred."

The Second Deputy Chair: Does the Attorney General want to comment on his amendment?

Hon Mr Hampton: I've already commented on this aspect.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is the House ready for the question?

Hon Mr Hampton: Call the question.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton has moved his amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House that his amendment carry? Carried.

Shall section 1, as amended, stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Attorney General, I believe you have amendments to section 2. Please proceed with that.

Hon Mr Hampton: I move that the bill be amended by adding the following section:

"Transition

"2.1 Part II of the Provincial Offences Act, as it read immediately before subsection 1(1) of this act is proclaimed in force, continues to apply to proceedings that were commenced before subsection 1(1) of this act is proclaimed in force."

The Second Deputy Chair: I gather this is a new addition to section 2?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: It's a new section between 2 and 3.

The Second Deputy Chair: It's coming between section 2 and section 3?

Hon Mr Hampton: That's correct.

The Second Deputy Chair: Therefore, we will deal with section 2 and then the addition thereto.

Shall section 2 carry without amendments? Agreed.

The Attorney General, Mr Hampton, has moved an addition to section 2. Does the Attorney General want some explanations and/or comments here?

Hon Mr Hampton: This amendment is essentially a transition provision. We spent the summer discussing implementation of the changes with court offices and municipal governments and it became clear to us that the new procedures should apply only to tickets issued after the new procedures come into force. The second amendment will provide that the new rules will apply only to tickets issued after they come into force. The current rules will apply to tickets issued before the proclamation date. As I indicated, our consultation with court offices and municipalities has persuaded us that this is by far the best and least confusing method of dealing with the transition.

The Second Deputy Chair: Are members ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's amendment carry? Agreed? Agreed.

Shall sections 3 and 4 stand unamended as part of the bill? Agreed? Agreed.

Shall the entire bill stand, as amended? Agreed? Agreed.

Shall the bill be now reported, as amended? Agreed.

Hon Mr Hampton: I move that the committee rise and report.

The Second Deputy Chair: Mr Hampton has moved that the committee rise and report. Agreed? Agreed.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: The committee of the whole begs to report one bill with amendments and requests leave to sit again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Orders of the day, the honourable government whip.

Hon Mrs Coppen: Mr Speaker, I understand we have unanimous consent to move to third reading of Bill 25.

The Acting Speaker: Mrs Coppen has asked for unanimous consent to move to third reading of Bill 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that we have unanimous consent? Agreed. We have unanimous consent.

1700

Hon Mr Hampton: I move third reading of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act and the Highway Traffic Act in relation to Parking Infractions.

I now have the pleasure of bringing the Parking Infractions Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992, forward for third reading. I would like to thank members of the House for facilitating the passage of this useful legislation, legislation that has not attracted controversy since its introduction in May of this year.

I also appreciate the assistance of municipalities across the province that have considered the legislation at various stages. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario was good enough to give us time during its executive meeting to explain the details of the legislation to it before introduction. A number of municipalities are now consulting with us in preparing the regulations and forms needed to put the bill into effect as soon as possible.

We hope to be able to proclaim the bill in force very soon, possibly by the new year. To this end, I ask your cooperation in now approving this third and final reading of Bill 25.

The Acting Speaker: The Attorney General, Mr Hampton, has moved third reading. Further debate? Questions and/or comments for the debate?

Mr Hampton has moved third reading of Bill 25. Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Hampton's motion carry? Agreed. Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

LONDON-MIDDLESEX ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LONDON ET MIDDLESEX

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex / Loi concernant les annexations faites à la cité de London et à certaines municipalités du comté de Middlesex.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): When we recessed, I believe the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand had the floor. Is he prepared to resume his participation in the debate?

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I wish to assure you I won't be talking about horses today, but I may be talking about bulls. The Minister of Municipal Affairs earlier today made a few statements regarding Bill 75 and the annexation procedure and process. He stated that someone needed to make a decision. That's correct. He needed to make the decision, but he should have made the correct one, to proceed under the boundaries negotiations act, rather than the wrong one and appoint a sole arbitrator and produce the mess that we find ourselves in today on this bill.

Contrary to the statement of the Minister of Municipal Affairs that there was no agreement among the municipalities involved in the annexation, there was considerable agreement. In fact, there was complete agreement that the city should grow and did need some additional territory for expansion. However, the city's stated need at that time, produced by a consultant's study of its own, was that some 12,000 plus acres were needed, not what we're faced with today, the transfer of 64,000 acres.

Contrary to the views of the Minister of Municipal Affairs regarding my own role as administrator in Middlesex county, I want to assure the members that I did work to reach an agreement with all the participating municipalities in that particular process. But being an appointed person, it's not my role to instruct elected representatives how to vote, how to decide and what to say. I only wish the municipal boundaries negotiations branch would follow the same practice with its minister and allow him to make some proper decisions in this matter.

One other matter I wish to correct is the statement attributed to a former member of this House, Mr Douglas Reycraft, former MPP for Middlesex. The minister has stated that he presented a proposal for a regional government. Mr Reycraft has approached me to state that he proposed a modest annexation that would keep the option open for some other type of municipal government structure at some future time, which is a possibility in any area, of course. Unfortunately, this bill does not provide for any such possible solution in the future. I wanted to clear that up.

To substantiate what I've said about my own role, I'd point out that the former warden, Ray Campbell, is in the audience and will speak to any members following about this matter, if they wish.

The time-limiting closure imposed by the government prevents me from adequately addressing and saying the things that must and should be said about Bill 75, An Act respecting Annexations to the City of London and to certain municipalities in the County of Middlesex. I've renamed it. It's An Act respecting the Emasculation and Disembowelment of the County of Middlesex. "Those are strong words," you say, but not strong enough, considering that the city of London study itself indicated the need for 12,000 acres for development up to the year 2026. The government has decided that's not nearly enough and is in fact proposing that the city receive 64,000 acres immediately.

In addition, the government is proposing the establishment of a neutered buffer zone of 55,000 acres, so you can see how this emasculates and disembowels the county of Middlesex. I say to all members of this House and to all municipalities in Ontario that are situated near larger urban municipalities: Beware, because Bill 75 establishes the procedure and the precedent to eliminate any and all of you, whether you're situated in counties or in regions -- remember the regions are always established by acts of this House -- or in unorganized districts.

I have a list of all the firsts contained in this bill, and they are substantial. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll be able to recite them all, but I did want to advise you of some of them and I will do so at this time.

Bill 75 will accomplish many firsts for the New Democratic government. These firsts compel me to call it unilateral, dictatorial, unfair and foul. Strong words perhaps, but I assure you there are citizens of the county of Middlesex and of the city of London who have much stronger words.

I would like to refer to you a book prepared by one resident, researched and written by one resident, Elder Stewart McColl who calls the procedure "The Cruel and Unusual." Read it. It has some excellent facts, some excellent quotes in it that should be read.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I read that. It is dreadful.

1710

Mr Eddy: I'm pleased to hear that some of the members have taken the opportunity to read it in its entirety. I'm sure they will be writing a letter to Elder McColl thanking him.

A number of firsts, as I've said. For the first time, it gives an annexing municipality considerably more land than it expected or wanted or applied for. Indeed it gives the city of London five and a half times the area that it originally felt it needed for development, 64,000 acres. Never in its wildest dreams did the city of London expect such largesse from this government.

It rejects agreements negotiated between the council of the township of London and the council of the city of London and an almost completed agreement between the township of Delaware and the city of London.

It rejects the decision of the city of London not to proceed with the annexation of lands from the township of North Dorchester and the township of West Nissouri. The city council had in fact withdrawn both of those bylaws authorizing the annexation from those two municipalities -- to concentrate on the others, I suppose.

This bill totally rejects the annexation process which was established by a statute of this Legislative Assembly, an Act to provide for Municipal Boundary Negotiations, a process that was carried out in good faith by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and followed by all ministers of Municipal Affairs until Bill 75.

The bill is the result of the appointment, for the first time, of a sole arbitrator with little or no municipal experience to recommend changes. The bill is founded on those recommendations, and when the sole arbitrator was introduced to the participant municipalities, the minister advised that whatever the sole arbitrator recommended, this government would legislate. Isn't that a bit presumptuous? Well, it's very presumptuous, in my opinion.

The bill imposes annexation on seven local municipalities and two counties, with no agreement among the participating councils, unless the approval of the city council has been obtained, and I'm not sure of that -- and no applications, except the two passed by the council of the city of London authorizing the annexation of lands in the township of London and the town of Westminster. It imposes a settlement on the participating municipalities with no opportunity to include a moratorium period for future annexations. So that can happen at any time in the future.

Most annexation agreements have included moratorium dates as well as compensations. It decided on no provincial funding, in any manner for any matter, even though 35% of the assessment of the county is being annexed to the city of London.

It annexes land from a town in one county to a village in another county, without an annexation application from that council. Never before. It conflicts with at least seven other municipal statutes, and I don't have time, at this time, to recite them all as I did previously.

It dissolves the London-Middlesex suburban roads commission, making the city of London the only separated municipality in a county in the province of Ontario which does not contribute to a suburban road system. I don't know where the money's going to come from, but it's not going to come from a county that has lost 35% of its assessment.

It imposes, or tries to impose, I understand, the Cumming formula on the settlement of county assets to the city of London. Never before has this happened. Assets of an upper tier remain with the upper tier, except in the case of Metropolitan Toronto, where a new upper-tier government was established and there was a transfer of assets from York county to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto; that's where the formula of Dr Lorne Cumming, a former deputy minister, came into being.

It rejects a decision of the London city council made in 1989-91 not to dissolve the London PUC or transfer any of its powers to the city of London, and that has been debated many, many times. The PUC, I would remind you, is an elected body of the city of London, but that is an internal matter.

It exempts 55,000 additional acres from the local municipalities adjoining the city and county from the present democratic planning process. It neuters it; it's a buffer zone.

I look forward to correcting many of the flaws in Bill 75 in debate in committee of the whole. I only hope we have the opportunity.

As another first, it appoints the elected head of one municipal government composed of nine members to represent not only the citizens of that local municipality on the London city council, but also the citizens of three other municipalities that will be annexed to the city -- most unfortunate.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member's time has now expired.

Mr Eddy: Can I ask one more question?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has asked for unanimous consent to continue the debate. Do we have unanimous consent?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): He's got it, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: You have unanimous consent to continue.

Mr Eddy: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's most unusual, but I deeply appreciate it in consideration of the great seriousness of this matter.

There was a member on the other side of the House who once spoke to a subject for 17 hours. This subject deserves more time than that. My greatest concern is the precedent it sets. There are already, I understand, agreements that have been negotiated in other municipalities across this province, in counties, local municipalities, with their separated municipalities. They are now prepared to walk out the door on those agreements and to proceed to negotiate or to apply, under the boundaries annexation process, to change the system. That's unfortunate, and I don't think it should happen.

When the boundaries negotiations process was negotiated, the Brant-Brantford area was used as the pilot project. The township of Brantford surrounds the city of Brantford in the centre of Brant county. If this process had been used on that occasion, there would be no township of Brantford and no county of Brant at this time, because under this process the city would have taken it all and walked. What was done with great care, with a provincial negotiator who prodded the elected representatives every step of the way, was to attempt to meet the city's needs with undeveloped lands as far as possible and to leave the local municipality, and therefore the county, with an industrial and commercial base. It was accomplished. It was accomplished because people negotiated and the provincial negotiator saw that as each step was negotiated it was off the table and we proceeded to the next.

I use that as the example simply because, in the case of the city of London, nothing was ever off the table and there were things to agree to. I agree it was a much more complicated situation where you had the township of London, the township of North Dorchester, the township of West Nissouri, the town of Westminster, the town of Delaware, plus the county and the city of London all sitting at a negotiating table. It was much too large and it was very difficult.

I think much more could have been accomplished. I think what should have happened is that the minister should either have proceeded under the boundaries negotiations act to appoint the committee -- I've forgotten the name of it at the present time, to continue to deal with the matter -- or he should have forced the members to proceed to make --

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I've talked to several of our members, and when you asked for unanimous consent there were several of our members who said no. The member for Durham East was one of the members.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The Speaker must tell you that when I asked for unanimous consent, I'm sorry, I did not hear any negative.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On that point, Mr Speaker, I think the member will wrap up in about two minutes. We will honour the request so that we'll let the Tories get on.

The Acting Speaker: That's a very important point of information.

1720

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was present when the request was made for unanimous consent and it was very clear that all the members in the House who were present at the time agreed and put forward the yes, so, Mr Speaker, you're quite correct.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The statement is not correct. I said no.

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker did not hear the negative. The honourable member who had the floor can now proceed.

Mr Eddy: I would say to the members opposite that it's a learning experience, what I'm saying, and I hope they will take the opportunity to listen. The county of Lambton is another case in point, but I don't have time to discuss that matter today. But I would hope that all members present realize what can happen with the change in procedures and I would particularly point out to the member from the county of Lambton that the city of Sarnia, if this procedure is going to be followed, could immediately apply to annex the township of Moore. That could happen tomorrow. I don't know whether that would upset your constituents or not, but it might.

That is the type of thing this act provides for. It allows the procedure to go forth, to completely ignore all the rules that have been negotiated over a period of years with the consent of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario which dealt with and indeed debated with and discussed with all of the segments, all of the sectors, of that association, including the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, the Association of Counties and Regions of Ontario, the large urban municipalities, the northern municipalities and the small urban section.

Each of them named representatives to a committee. The committee sat down and discussed what is the best way. I want to tell you, there were a lot more stringent rules proposed than are contained in this act. Out of it came a report. It was discussed with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and before the act was passed there was a pilot project. They said, if it works in Brantford, it can work anyplace in the world, because of the problems there and the ongoing animosity for years and years.

An agreement was negotiated and it did bring municipal harmony and it did not disembowel and it did not eliminate an important local municipality that had been a leader in commercial, industrial and residential development outside of a city. There were areas annexed to the city that were agreed to and it's worked out well. But I want to stress the importance of municipalities near or adjoining cities being allowed to continue and have an industrial and commercial base; it's essential.

As to the elimination of the London suburban roads commission, of course, it's not going to happen in all the other counties with their separated municipalities in Ontario, so the Minister of Transportation must feel it's essential to continue with that system. However, in London it's not going to continue. There are precedents for having large urban municipalities participate in suburban roads systems and contribute to them.

Before the formation of Metropolitan Toronto, the city of Toronto was a separated city from York county. There were no county roads in York county -- they were all suburban roads -- and the city of Toronto paid its half mill. When the city joined the 13 southerly municipalities of York county to form Metropolitan municipality, Metro became the separated urban and paid the suburban share to York county until it became a region.

The same happened in the city of Hamilton, where all the county roads, because of the size of the city and the half mill on the city's equalized assessment to suburban roads, became suburban roads. The same thing could happen in London-Middlesex, and I'll tell you, the suburban road system plans the road system outside the city, which is an asset to all. No one can deny that; it's an asset to all citizens.

I know there are a number of other things in the act I would like to speak to. However, I'm being prevailed upon to conclude and I look forward to correcting -- to attempting to correct -- some of the flaws in Bill 75 in committee.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Daigeler: Just a few remarks on what the member for Brant-Haldimand said. I think he expressed some very legitimate fears that he has for the people of his riding and the people of the greater London area, but I just would like to say that we in the Ottawa-Carleton area have similar fears, and just in case I do not get an opportunity to speak later on, I do want to put them on the record.

In the Ottawa-Carleton area we are also presently involved in a study on the possible reorganization of the Ottawa-Carleton area. Representing the city and the municipality of Nepean, I'm extremely concerned by the precedent this particular legislation is putting forward and by its attempt to impose a provincial solution on the outlying areas of the greater London area. This is something that makes me, coming from Nepean, very, very wary about the government's willingness to listen to all the people and especially to listen to the people in the Ottawa-Carleton area, who take a very different view than the city of Ottawa does in our region.

This particular bill obviously sets a very dangerous precedent, and I just hope and I want to make sure that there will be no thinking on the part of the minister that what he's doing with regard to London he can simply repeat in the Ottawa-Carleton area, because I can tell him that I certainly will be one, and there will be many others, who will be extremely vocal in their opposition towards any kind of unilateral moves on the part of the government and on the part of those he has put in place.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to comment.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to take a couple of minutes to compliment the member for Brant-Haldimand on the remarks he made and the ongoing interest he has in that community with regard to the annexation. Being involved in municipal life as long as he has, I know how it has affected him. We are in much the same position in Simcoe county with regard to the county restructuring that's taken place.

I don't know whether anybody over on the other side is listening to us or not, and it concerns me when we're talking about a consultation process, we're talking about people being able to have their say. We had referendums in the county of Simcoe where 90% of the municipality voted agin county restructuring. The minister says he doesn't believe in referendums. The minister appointed an arbitrator in the London-Middlesex area, one lone arbitrator, to come in and make a recommendation. I think they were looking at some 25,000 acres, and it ends up the arbitrator gave them some 64,000 acres.

When I look at what's happening in Simcoe county with regard to Tiny township and the town of Midland and I look at how the municipality is losing some 25% of its commercial assessment, there have been no recommendations made that I've heard of -- they may be working on them -- for some compensation to that municipality. I think any municipality that loses that amount of assessment should be compensated for it.

I have thousands of petitions here from the people in Tiny township who are concerned about it, for the very same reasons as the member who has just spoken here today about the London-Middlesex annexation. The sole arbitrator came in there, made a decision accepted by the minister, and he's going to change that whole community in one sweep, so to speak, and I find it totally wrong. The minister indicates that he's listening, he's consulting. This government does not consult, this government does not listen. They want to dictate.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand has two minutes in response.

Mr Eddy: I appreciate the support on this matter, because I feel so strongly about it. As I say, it's not just the county of Middlesex and the city of London; it's the fact that a negotiated agreement between the municipalities of this province has negotiated the basis for the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, an act to be followed in all future boundary applications.

Why can't we proceed with the act until this House decides the act should and must be amended in some or several ways? That is the proper way to proceed. It's the only right way to proceed. We cannot run roughshod over negotiated settlements. I thought this government was so very strong on negotiated changes, that that's what it stood for in all cases.

If there's a way of negotiating the matter, let us negotiate it. Let's not be dictatorial, unilateral and undemocratic.

The people will be far happier, the citizens of the areas, of both the city and the county, will be far happier with a negotiated settlement settled by the people they have elected and put their trust and faith in. We have at the present time in our country a proposal for a negotiated settlement. I think it's somewhat similar.

Bill 75 will be going to committee. There are many, many changes that must be done to it, but the fact remains that the bill itself supersedes a provincial act negotiated in good faith between the municipalities, a very important level of government, and the government of the province of Ontario.

Mr McLean: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Our spokesperson for this bill is the member for Grey. He has a bad cold today and he's not here. Could we set aside his time, the hour and a half, for tomorrow and let somebody else carry on for the half-hour today? We need unanimous consent for that.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the Progressive Conservative critic for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to have an hour and a half? Agreed. Therefore, the critic for Municipal Affairs will have his hour and a half, if he so needs it. Further debate, to the Progressive Conservative Party for one half-hour.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It is with some degree of --

Interjection: Disappointment.

Mrs Cunningham: No, I think probably concern, that I rise in the House this afternoon to speak to Bill 75. I say that because this has been a very long, difficult and demanding process for so many of the citizens of the city of London and the county of Middlesex and the surrounding townships.

I listened with interest as the member for Brant-Haldimand tabled many of the concerns he had with this process, and I also listened with interest as the member for Nepean talked about concerns he may have with regard to the process for the future.

I would like to remind so many of my colleagues in this House that this issue of annexation for the city of London has been one that has been discussed off and on, I think in fairness we can probably say for some 10 years, but probably had reached deliberations of some serious concern as many as six years ago and perhaps five years ago. But there have been efforts on behalf of the city of London and the county of Middlesex and the townships to reach some kind of agreement in the past two years. In my position of representing London North, I haven't really been party to those, but all of us have read with interest over the years the efforts on behalf of the elected representatives at the municipal level.

So I must say that at the time when this government became interested in solving this tremendous dilemma, it was without surprise that we noticed that it would probably have to take some different approach, because certainly the Liberal government that preceded it was not able to deal with this issue. I'm not certain what opportunities or what route I would have taken had I been in government, but all of us sat back with interest, including the citizens of London and Middlesex, as we wondered just how the process the minister chose to follow would work.

It's unprecedented in the province of Ontario, and I think the minister has reminded all of us that it's unprecedented because local governments could not come to some conclusion with regard to this issue of annexation for the city of London.

It would be nice to be able to stand today and criticize the process, because I think that is what people would expect me to do, but I didn't have an alternative to offer the minister on behalf of the city of London, and I don't believe that at that particular time the other members, for London South, for London Centre or from Middlesex county, had an alternative to offer the minister.

So I say as a member of the opposition at this time that I was supportive and that I wondered how the process would work. I expected that the government would listen and have an open, consultative process so that everyone could be heard. And I don't mean just listened to; I mean that some action could be taken with regard to the input they had.

There have been some criticisms around the appointment of an arbitrator. I would like to say at this point in time that I felt the arbitrator was given a tremendous responsibility. He's not elected and therefore not accountable. How does one choose an arbitrator when this process in the province of Ontario hasn't been followed before? I think it was probably with some degree of courage that the particular person who was asked -- none of us knew about that; this was something that was the total responsibility of the government -- took on his role.

There was a very short period of time, and there was a lot of consultation, some agree positive and some agree not so positive. I personally was watching with interest and was pleased when the minister took the time to call the public hearings in London. I would have been much happier had it been a standing committee of the Legislative Assembly, but because of the negotiations that took place as we tried to adjourn for the summer months -- I will be somewhat critical of the government. I feel that both the official opposition and ourselves did want public hearings in the summer, preferably late summer, so that we all, those of us who are elected, from all parties, would have been able to sit on that committee and hear the citizens for ourselves.

I think there was a lot to be gained in that process. Quite simply put, some of the fears of this Legislative Assembly are that this process could be used again, and in that regard, it would have been most important that those who foresaw that challenge in their communities in the very near future would have learned a lot about the process and could have advised the government first hand otherwise. I'm disappointed that we didn't have an all-party committee in the summer, but I will say that the minister did have successful hearings for two days in the month of September and that he did take the time to go to London and to listen.

1740

There were many concerns raised at that particular point in time. I'd like to speak to those and at the same time make some remarks on the position the arbitrator took. I was extremely surprised -- and I will say this, as I represent the city of London today -- at the size of the annexation. I felt personally, and on behalf of the citizens I represent, certainly from within the city but many who have felt I could speak on their behalf from the county of Middlesex, that this is truly a very large annexation.

It increases the city by annexing some 26,000 hectares, over 64,000 acres, of surrounding land and making it about 80% the size of Metropolitan Toronto. This plan is to take place on January 1. The size has been of some concern, since London will triple in size, to many members of the city as well as the county, but the problem with negotiating beyond that was that the minister did say he would accept without change the recommendations of the arbitrator.

I think it was at significant risk that any minister makes that statement, especially when this whole process of arbitration had in fact been used for the first time. We have seen some changes and we're looking forward to the amendments the government will put forth as this bill moves from second reading into public committee hearings at this Legislative Assembly in the very near future, I believe some time within the next two weeks. I did want to remark on the size of the annexation and there's a reason for my doing that.

The other issue I felt I would never want to see repeated at any time, I don't think it's the role of an arbitrator -- but I do feel that the guidelines he was given were particularly vague on the subject -- to make changes in the structure of any municipal council or facility that is attached to it. I'm speaking directly of the public utilities commission. I feel that those people were elected and should have been allowed to finish their terms. I've made my opinions known to the minister as well as to the mayor of the city of London. Having said that, I hope that would never happen again.

We now seem to have some consensus around that issue. There are positive recommendations as to how that utility will be managed by the city council, the structure of which we're not sure. We're again waiting to see if the minister has responded to any of the input with regard to the hearings in London that took place at the end of September.

I suppose the third point I would like to make with regard to the annexation is my total confusion around the purpose of any buffer zone. Again I'm speaking on behalf of the citizens both from the city of London and from Middlesex county who wrote to me and asked me to put their positions forward. These seem to be the tremendous concerns that the citizens have.

I think it is my job again if there is any better plan to help the citizens along in that regard and so I hope I have been able to open some doors. It's my understanding that there are still some ongoing discussions between municipalities and the city of London.

I will say at this point that in my opinion the government will probably not make any substantive change to the bill and, therefore, it's our responsibility to get on with this annexation process in a positive way, in the best way we can.

I think the good news is this, if I can reflect on it for just a few minutes: There was a reason for the city of London asking for annexed property, a larger area of land, so that some planning could take place that had never been allowed to happen probably in the last decade in many areas.

I can tell you, as a former school board trustee who sat on the former planning board of the city of London at a time when the member for Brant-Haldimand had a very important position in Middlesex county as its chief executive officer, if I can put it that way -- he will know that there was some very serious planning the city ought to have done but really wasn't in a position to do because if it did, it always looked like it was stepping on the toes of its neighbours.

I think he would agree with me in that regard, that it's very difficult when annexation is the first word on the end of your tongue every time you try to talk about the environment; every time you try to talk about the planning of roads; when you start talking about the expansion or the reduction of school boards, which happens to be a topic in the province; when you start talking about waste management, and when we take a look at the expense of the environmental assessments. We always seem to be stepping on each other's toes.

One thing we have had in the city of London, the county of Middlesex and the township is, I think, a great working relationship over the years. I hope that at the end of this process that will remain because it's not only in the interests of the citizens of London, or now we probably will be saying the greater London area, that we remain colleagues and friends and good communicators, especially in the area of total planning, but it's in the best interests of the citizens whom we serve.

In southwest Ontario at this very time, just today, we heard of yet another plant closing, Campbell Soup, which in fact will lay off numbers of employees. We have been subjected to this tremendous insult over the last few months and perhaps years as we see industry picking up and leaving at a time when we think southwest Ontario ought to be attracting industry, attracting business and attracting people to live within this fantastic city that we live in now and the surrounding countryside that has been such an asset to the citizens of London.

I think I can speak on behalf of many families who would say that there wouldn't be more than a 10-minute drive from our very core in any direction to go into the surrounding countryside with all of the agriculture and the farm land and the friendliness of the small towns and villages that have offered us such a tremendous asset as we work together as neighbours.

I think we have to look at ourselves as being one of the more positive areas in the province of Ontario. As we look to industries locating in our expanded city, as we look to ourselves with our vast farm lands and our active city that has offered so much to the citizens, we have to say that we really do need stability. At the end of these discussions, no matter what happens, I hope that we can underline the words "stability" and "working together," because, if ever before, we really must get on with the whole business of planning.

We need to plan around our environmental concerns. There were many issues raised with regard to the environment and this bill. We're expecting at least two or three amendments to meet the needs of the environmentalists as they presented to us at the end of the month of September.

In the area of waste management, we need to do more planning. We have to talk openly about the impact of this legislation with regard to Westminster and with regard to any other plans that the city might have in the area of waste management. We're looking forward to those public hearings so that both the municipality and the surrounding townships can tell us to what degree the new amendments will improve upon the concerns that they had.

We need to do more planning around the airport. For those members of the House who aren't aware, the city of London does attract many visitors and the airport is a very busy place. We're looking for expansion so that we in fact can be a city that's totally accessible by way of air, both south of the border and to other parts of Canada.

We are looking for recognition with regard to the marvellous health care facilities we have. We know that we need to do even more planning when it comes to meeting the needs of the surrounding southwest Ontario areas in joint planning with our health council as we look to some very serious discussions around health care now we know that we'll have a greater responsibility as the city grows in size and population.

Right now I think one of the most eminent concerns is that of school boards. It's my understanding that both the London Board of Education and the Middlesex County Board of Education and their chairpersons met today to begin discussing the issues of boundaries and taxes and just what that will mean to education with regard to the city of London probably acquiring as many as three schools from within the recommended boundaries as they sit today.

1750

I know we have to move on the whole area of technology as we look at ourselves as a city that attracts the business community; as we look at ourselves with the colleges, the universities and the school systems we have; the industry and business and the training institutions as we work together with the labour community, which had significant input to this legislation. We know Ontario is counting on us to get on with the planning and to make certain that we can be a leader in the area of technological development as we contribute to the rest of Ontario and Canada.

It's with some degree of anxiety that I stand here today. I am anxious to see the amendments as a result of the public hearings in London. I will tell the members of the House that for the citizens who are employed by any of the agencies that are affected by this annexation, it has been made very public that there will be no job losses for the employees. I say that especially for the employees at the public utilities commission. We will wait to see just what will happen with the amendments two weeks from now, and at that time I hope to be a member of that committee to put forth amendments where I see fit, if the government hasn't done so.

I'd like to take this opportunity to say to the government that it's extremely important that the joint committee that has been recommended and that is working together -- to see that this annexation and all the challenges that go with it are treated with respect for people's input, so that we have a smooth transition process. Those meetings are taking place right now.

It seems to me that Middlesex county seems to be eager to use London's landfill site, and that's going to have to be discussed.

It seems to me that there are other issues. We read the headlines of the paper this week that the annexation deal could include a tax holiday. Everybody looked at that with some degree of glee, because of course there are expenses involved with this. We've been reassured that the city taxes will not go up more than approximately 1.2%. We're also reminded that we can get more information than that at the upcoming committee hearings, because that didn't take into consideration all the services or the increased services that the city will have to take on, such as fire and police.

It's been a very challenging process. It's been one that I thought was met with a great deal of professionalism on behalf of the arbitrator, and I congratulate him for taking on this significant task. I also would like to say that nobody could have been more proud than myself on September 24 and September 25, as so many interested citizens made their presentations before the committee that the minister and my colleague the member for London Centre, my colleague the member for London South and my colleague the member for Middlesex shared. There were many subjects discussed. There were many recommendations for change and I think it now is the responsibility of the government to come forth with those. I look forward to the hearings in a couple of weeks.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I enjoyed the remarks of the member for London North, but she mentioned that the former government couldn't resolve the differences in London. I want to remind her that it was only in 1988 that the city of London launched an annexation claim. That former government, that previous government, the Tory government took 37 years to resolve its Sarnia problem. I don't think that taking four years to resolve the London situation was all that bad.

I think the arbitrator who took on the task of reviewing the London-Middlesex situation was very much aware of his mandate. It was a very precise mandate, "Go out there and do it and I will accept all of your recommendations." Mr Brant has no excuse whatsoever to say, "Look, you know, I had a job to do." He had a job to do and he did it for the minister. In other words, he was the hatchet man for the minister. I can't excuse Mr Brant. He had a job to do and he knew exactly what he was getting involved in. I don't think there is another annexation in this province of Ontario that you can compare to what's happening in London-Middlesex.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr McLean: I want to comment on the remarks the member for London North has made here today. There are two very important items within the announcement and the speech she made. It had to do with planning and the environment.

It's interesting when we look at the annexation that's taken place around London and at the restructuring that's taken place in Simcoe county. Can anybody tell me of any planning that was done ahead of time to determine where the line should be drawn, which municipalities should be amalgamated and which municipalities should be left out? There's been none.

I would have thought that the planning process would be the number one priority of this government, to make sure that things were in place. We have Mr Sewell now running around the province listening to and talking to people. He even indicated that he wanted to do away with septic tanks in rural Ontario. Well, how could you do that? We have Mr Martin, his friend, who is doing the same thing.

When we look at the planning process that's gone on with regard to annexations, there has been none. We have the annexation that took place in south Simcoe. Now they want to change some of the boundaries, because they realized it wasn't right. London-Middlesex is going to run into the very same problem.

Can you imagine an arbitrator coming in and they wanted to give 25,000 and the arbitrator says, "We'll give you 64,000," with no planning to indicate how it happened? This ministry is out to lunch when it wants to look at the aspects of how county planning is done and how annexations are done.

Then the environment is all part of the planning process. Are there lakes around London? Are there lakes in Middlesex? I know there is Orr Lake in the county of Simcoe, and there is Lake Simcoe, Lake Couchiching, and we have the border between Tiny and Midland. It just doesn't make any sense at all.

When we look at the consultation process, we don't have any and we don't have any planning process. Their priorities are all wrong.

The Acting Speaker: Further question and/or comments?

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I will be very brief. The member opposite raised a question regarding education and the problems that the Middlesex County Board of Education is going to experience because of this annexation. I think it's important for members of this House to understand that the Middlesex County Board of Education provides a very unique service for our children and for the county of Middlesex, inasmuch as it provides the kind of education that is geared for rural students and meets their needs in a remarkable way. In point of fact, we have had award winners, students who have demonstrated great skill and who have scored very high in national tests, so very clearly it's a board that has provided the kind of education that our children need to take their place in Ontario society.

Unfortunately, the proposal that's before us, Bill 75, will seriously hamper the Middlesex board of education inasmuch as 35% of the tax base on which it depends will be gone, lost through this annexation. Certainly, there are grants. The board will have the usual grants, but the reality is that 35% of the assessment is significant. We have serious concerns about whether our children will continue to receive that excellent quality of education that we've come to expect and appreciate from the Middlesex board.

This is something I'm very glad the member opposite has raised, and I think it's something we must pursue diligently and with concern in the next days and certainly at the committee level.

I would like to thank the member for raising the issue. I look forward to hearing from other members of this House about the concerns they have and that I have about Bill 75 and this annexation.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for London North has two minutes in response.

Mrs Cunningham: I wouldn't want anyone in this House to think this had been thought up at the last moment. In response to the member for Ottawa East, I would say the official advertisement that was published for annexation, with regard to the city of London's application, did take place in 1988, when the Liberals were in government and when the member for Middlesex was also a Liberal. It seems to me that it was in the hands and the responsibility of that particular government and it didn't act on it.

I think my comments were correct when I said it wasn't dealt with by the Liberal government. I would also say, so that no one has any misunderstanding, that the annexation plans, for specific reasons, were fully laid out as a growth strategy in the city's official plan, 1971-91, which was duly published with the province of Ontario and certainly with the citizens of London -- the county of Middlesex was very much aware of. I of course had to work within the limitations of that official plan and was on the planning board for a number of years as we developed it. Annexation had been planned for by the city some 10 years after the previous annexation in 1961, so this is not news. I think I'd like to deal with facts, although with regard to my mixed feelings.

The member for Middlesex, I thank you for raising the issue of education. I know that if either of us has a top priority right now, it's the quality of education in our schools. I don't think, though, in fairness, that we're going to be concerned about the quality, because I think both boards do a wonderful job with the students. But I do think the concern will be just how we finance this education. I wish the boards the best and offer my services where possible.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. It now being past 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, October 20, at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1803.