Journal des débats 1994-mai-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Mr Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1995, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): As you will know, Mr Speaker, each year the mining industry in Ontario sponsors what is known as Mining Week in Ontario, and today marks the first day of that particular Mining Week for 1994. I can only remind you of the billions of dollars that this industry contributes to the economic wellbeing of the entire province, and I must say, being from a northern riding, I can't stress enough the importance of this industry in my riding.

In Balmertown we have two of the largest gold mines in North America, those being the Campbell and the Dickeson mines. As well we have a potential development taking place in Shoal Lake, a community just west of Kenora, that development being the property of Consolidated Professor, a property which has a great potential for the economic impact of the area.

Mr Speaker, you will remember my resolution of October 21 past where I asked the House to support the resolution that would bring various ministries together, ministries that would take a closer look at what they were doing to this industry, which has often been referred to as the pillar of the economy in the province of Ontario.

The resolution did gain the entire support on a majority basis in the House but did not gain the support that I wanted from the benches on the NDP side. It passed, of course, 33 to 29 in the vote. But again during this Mining Week I would like to stress the importance of this industry to not only my riding but the entire province.

At this time I would like to invite all members, on behalf of the Ontario Mining Association, to the Royal Ontario Museum Wednesday evening to meet the miners.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The Alumni Association of Conestoga College has embarked on a campaign protesting the interference of the Ontario Council of Regents in the selection of the college's board of governors.

The Council of Regents says every board should have representatives from organized labour, aboriginals and people with disabilities and, as a result, is rejecting some highly qualified local people in its attempt to put its own stamp on the makeup of the board.

This campaign includes newspaper ads by Conestoga College alumni which state:

"The College of Regents is trying to dictate who should be members of college boards of governors. This will result in people less qualified and less interested in our community than Larry Zepf being appointed to Conestoga College's board of governors. The board of directors of the Alumni Association of Conestoga College believes governors must be selected on the merits of their expertise, their interest in the community and their dedication to the colleges." I agree.

Over 450 members of my community have signed petitions supporting this campaign and calling on the government to agree to a three-party review of the criteria for approving appointments to community college boards. I strongly support the alumni association's campaign and I join them in demanding that the government agree to an immediate all-party review of its policy.

The petitions, which are addressed to the Minister of Education and Training, have been placed on the 30-foot banner which my colleagues are holding up behind me. These petitions are an indication of the widespread concern --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired. Order. The honourable member for Waterloo North may not have been aware of it, but while she was making her statement two of her colleagues were holding a very large banner behind her. The member will know that it is not really in keeping with maintaining appropriate decorum in the chamber. I would ask that, as we continue, all members keep that in mind whenever they're making a statement.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): It was a pleasure to meet with physician colleagues from the United States over the weekend when Physicians for a National Health Program chose Toronto for its semi-annual meeting.

These are conscientious practising doctors alarmed about the appalling inequities of their country's health care system, which drains the resources of patients, government and businesses. They are angry with Clinton's unworkable compromise plan, which on analysis will only make the level of care worse and make costs increase. Clinton's plan is destined to fail.

What they are calling for is a Canadian approach, also often referred to a single-payer system. They can see the lower costs, particularly of administration, the comprehensiveness, the universality, which means that there are no exclusions for existing health risks. They would dearly appreciate national legislation like the Canada Health Act, which requires universality, portability and non-profit administration.

Our discussions were frank and we did not suggest that our system here is perfect. While it may be consistent with the Canada Health Act to exclude such things as prescription drugs, coverage for temporary residents in the country and full coverage for snowbirds outside, we risk people's health by these exclusions and make those affected dependent on the inconsistencies of private insurance. There are innovative ways to remove the exclusions and strengthen the public system.

It is with Canadian citizens as well as the Americans that I join my medical colleagues and the groundswell of opinion in joining the call on this bumper sticker: "Single payer. One system for everyone."

1340

REGULATION OF MORTGAGE BROKERS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to express my disappointment with the Bob Rae-NDP government. I think all of us in this Legislature have received complaints from people who have been ripped off by loan brokers, people who say they will get someone a loan, promise that they've got the loan secured and then say, "All you need now is to give me a little deposit and I'll get the loan," only to find a couple of days later that (a) they don't get the loan and (b) they get none of their deposit back.

I have attempted to help to solve this problem. I sent the government a letter months ago saying, "Are you going to act on this?" I never got a response back from the government. I said, "Fine, I'll introduce a private member's bill." I prepared a private member's bill and sent it to the two ministers who are involved in it, both of whom never got back to me. I introduced a private member's bill designed to solve this problem, only to find that suddenly the NDP government, the day it was debated, indicated it had some problems with it and essentially shelved the legislation.

What you'll find now, all of you out there who are being ripped off by them, is that there was a bill that would solve it and the NDP chose to shelve it. Ironically, I have a friend who's a quadriplegic. His attendant, four days after the bill was shelved, was ripped off for $300.

I can tell you I am very disappointed. I will not let this matter die and eventually I will force the NDP government to act on it.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I'd like to commend the unknown Liberal leader for recent pronouncements on her party's commitment to safe communities. The booklet is the Liberals' catch-up answer to Mike Harris's New Directions, Volume Three: A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario, which we released back in January.

It's interesting that the first time the Liberals take a stand on crime, they do so by plagiarizing directly from Mike Harris. Of the 33 recommendations in the McLeod report, at least 21 of the ideas are to be found in New Directions, Volume Three: A Blueprint for Justice and Community Safety in Ontario. I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Here are just a few of the Mike Harris recommendations which resurface in the Liberal pamphlet: zero tolerance for violence and guns in school, court diversion programs, improvements to dangerous offender legislation. They also want a registry for sex offenders, something covered in a bill introduced by our member for York Mills, David Turnbull.

The list goes on and on. Page 10 of the Liberal booklet talks of prohibiting criminals from profiting from their crimes: shades of Bill 85 put forward by Cam Jackson, our member for Burlington South.

Perhaps the Liberals' greatest tribute to our party's hard work is their call for a victims' bill of rights, again proposed by us and voted against by the former Liberal government, something also introduced by Cam Jackson.

We're wondering when we can expect to see the Liberals' knock-off of our latest document, the Common Sense Revolution. Should we just make it easier and add them to our mailing list?

POLICE WEEK

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This is Police Week in Canada. I invite all members to join me in recognizing the outstanding work done by our dedicated women and men in blue.

Police Week in Ontario is sponsored by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, the OPP, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and municipal police services.

Our police officers are often the first line of contact between the public and the justice system in Ontario. This is a difficult position to be in, but our police officers do their dangerous and increasingly complex jobs with professionalism, integrity and compassion. They deserve our respect and support.

Ontarians know that our police services are first rate. A recent Environics survey found a great majority of Ontario residents rated their police services very highly. This is a tribute to the many officers who put their lives on the line every day in the service of others.

The theme of this year's Police Week is "Working Together in the Community." It highlights the work police services are doing to respond to the spirit of community policing.

In my riding of Oxford there will be a number of events, including a mall exhibit by the Woodstock detachment of the OPP, school tours of the Ingersoll police station and classroom visits of the Ingersoll Police Service.

This morning the Honourable David Christopherson, Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, attended an appreciation breakfast to kick off Police Week in Hamilton. Earlier this afternoon he joined the Metropolitan police service to officially launch Police Week here in Toronto.

I encourage all members and their constituents to show their support for their local police service by participating in the various Police Week activities.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Last Friday Liberal leader Lyn McLeod released a comprehensive policy to support her party's commitment to making our communities safer. Although our communities are statistically among the safest in North America, the trend has definitely been moving in the wrong direction and needs to be reversed.

Lyn McLeod's commitment includes cracking down on gun-related crime; toughening sentence, parole and bail provisions; reforming the Young Offenders Act; protecting women and children from abuse and crime; defending victims' rights; creating safer neighbourhoods through crime prevention methods such as safety audits and community policing; attacking crime's root causes: poverty, joblessness, discrimination, family violence, lack of education and illegal drug use.

Ontario citizens want government action to prevent crime, to fight violence in our communities and to make sure violent criminals are caught and punished.

A small part of our action plan was to introduce Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition. We were pleased to see all parties, including Mr Runciman, support this measure on second reading, and we urge the government to take quick action to pass this bill.

Once again, to the member for Leeds-Grenville, no party or government has ownership of this issue. This issue is owned by the people, and the people want action for safer communities now.

WILLIAM HOWLAND

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I rise today in the Legislature to pay our respects to Justice William Howland, who died last Friday at the age of 79.

Most of you are probably familiar with Chief Justice Howland and his involvement in some of the most sensational and controversial court cases in Ontario in recent years. He headed the panel that upheld the convictions of Ernst Zundel on a charge of spreading false news, he was one of two dissenting judges concerning the extension of financing of Roman Catholic schools and he sat on the Court of Appeal into the inquiry on the Patti Starr affair.

Members like myself who were elected before 1990 will remember him filling in for the Lieutenant Governor on many occasions, and he indeed signed many of the pieces of legislation which previous governments passed. We can attest, as will most of his colleagues in the legal profession, that Justice Howland was one of the most dedicated individuals ever to sit on the bench. He worked long, hard hours and he was committed to bettering our justice system.

He was noted for holding an annual press conference at the opening of the courts each January to express his likes or dislikes about what the government was doing with regard to the justice system. Some of those comments initiated such reviews as the length of time it took for cases to go to trial. He felt that delays for trial were an injustice to both victims and individuals accused of committing crimes.

Justice Howland had an illustrious life. He was a silver medallist from Osgoode Hall Law School, was promoted to the Ontario Court of Appeal and became Chief Justice of this province and served there until 1990. He was awarded both the Order of Ontario and the Order of Canada in 1991.

Unfortunately, Judge Howland's other love in his life, his wife, Margaret Patricia, passed away about a year and a half ago and they had no children. I am sure, however, that all of us here in the Legislature would like to express our sympathies to not only his family but also his many, many friends in the legal community and recognize this man's tremendous contribution to our province over his lifetime.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): Over the weekend I had the opportunity to read a very intriguing document called The Common Sense Revolution, an economic blueprint released by Progressive Conservative leader Mike Harris. Anyone who can read and operate a calculator will quickly realize that Mr Harris's figures in his economic blueprint simply don't add up.

Mr Harris also appears to be confused on where he stands politically. He can't decide if he wants Ontario to be Republican or Reform. Well, Ontarians don't want it to be either.

1350

We in Ontario have an emphasis on the collective good. As a result, our standard of living and quality of life are one of the best in the world. Ontario is known worldwide for its superiority in social security for the disadvantaged, in its health care system, in racial tolerance, in educational opportunities and in the overall quality of life. We are recognized as compassionate people with a strong humanitarian idealism, and that is something Ontarians should be very proud of.

The Progressive Conservatives, described by author Maude Barlow as "the parcel of rogues," will destroy what Ontarians have fought for for many years. Their slash-and-burn policies will change this province for all time. If allowed to implement his right-wing bona fides outlined in his document, Mr Harris would make former Conservative Premier Frank Miller's Ontario look like Sweden. Get with it, Mike. So much for common sense.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In Etobicoke last week, a woman stepped off an elevator and was shot in the stomach. A 13-year-old and a 14-year-old have been charged in connection with that shooting. Over the weekend, there were reports of a holdup in Pickering, where a 15-year-old allegedly robbed a convenience store at gunpoint.

You're the minister responsible for consumer regulation and you are aware that there is absolutely nothing in regulation in this province that stops teenagers from walking into the local sporting goods store and buying as much ammunition as they have the money to pay for.

Minister, I ask you: Do you believe that 13-year-olds and 14-year-olds should be legally allowed to buy bullets for guns?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr Speaker, I think that question would be most appropriately answered by the Attorney General.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As the Leader of the Opposition is well aware, we are going to be having a thorough discussion in the legislative committee about the issue of the sale of ammunition. We have expressed as a government a very strong desire to look at the suggestions that have been brought forward about controlling the sale of ammunition. We've pledged our support to the federal government in its efforts to control the use and the sale and the stealing of arms, and we certainly intend to do that.

We look forward to the discussion in the justice committee and expect that we will be able to come forward with a consensus opinion from this Legislature on this very important issue.

Mrs McLeod: I wanted to address the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who I had hoped not only would agree on the principle that there needs to be regulation but also would recognize that the ability to regulate the sale of a good in an Ontario store falls within her jurisdiction and does fall within the jurisdiction of the province. We do not believe there is any reason why this government, if it believes this to be an urgent issue, is not able to take action.

Since the minister has referred the question, I will repeat my question to the Attorney General. Minister, I do not believe this is an issue on which we need to spend extensive time discussing the principle. The question that I posed to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I pose to you. It's a straightforward question. Do you believe that 13- and 14-year-olds should be able to walk into a store in the province of Ontario and buy bullets for guns? If you do not believe they should be able to walk into a store and buy bullets for guns, why will you not take immediate action as a government responsible for legislation in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: My personal belief, frankly, on gun control issues and ammunition is very strong. No, I do not believe that anyone who doesn't have a valid firearms certificate ought to be able to purchase ammunition. I have no problem supporting that kind of recommendation.

But we had understood, and had certainly understood from the opposition, that this was an issue they wanted to discuss, and wanted to discuss as soon as possible and with some urgency, before the justice committee. We have committed to do that.

We are also very aware that this whole issue around guns and ammunition control should be coordinated in a general way with our fellow provinces and with the federal government, because the issue always is, of course, particularly in border communities, around making restrictions on one side of the border and having those restrictions not honoured on the other side of the border.

We are saying that, yes, this is an important issue. I believe it needs to be discussed and there needs to be some action taken. But as with many other issues, provincial control over this is very highly limited by the lack of consistency across our country.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, we did raise this as an issue of some urgency with the government. We did urge the government to be willing to sit down with us and look at immediate steps that could be taken. That was more than six weeks ago. We now have the justice committee, finally, with some agreement to meet and discuss issues of concern and steps that can be taken to deal with the rising alarm about increasing crime, but the courts of justice bill is going to be heard even before we can begin to discuss these much more urgent issues.

Minister, that is why we proposed legislation. There is a private member's bill before this House in order to allow this Legislature to take what are logical, immediate first steps. The legislation that has been proposed to control the sale of ammunition in Ontario's stores could be passed very quickly. It is easy to implement. This kind of regulation has the support of police chiefs across the province.

Minister, I remind you how quickly your government has been willing to act in other circumstances where private member's legislation was brought forward to deal with the issue of minors purchasing, in this case, lottery tickets. Within a week that legislation was passed and your government moved to enact the legislation as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: Surely restricting the ability of young people to go into a store and buy bullets demands as urgent a response as the legislation restricting the sale of lottery tickets to minors.

Minister, I ask again, will you support this private member's legislation? Will you take this necessary step to do something immediate, pass the legislation into law and enact it as quickly as possible?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I know it's in the best interests of the Leader of the Opposition to put it forward in a private member's bill and to talk about it as though it's the only solution to the issue. We were under the understanding that we wanted to look at the whole range of this issue of ammunition sales.

I don't in any way believe that we are dragging our feet on this issue. We have clearly said that we want to have a thorough discussion and that we see the need to link this to our discussions with and our support of the federal government in its very strong commitment on the issue of gun and ammunition control. I would just say to the member that there's no lack of commitment on our side of the House. I would also say that I think this member would be the first person to criticize this government if we were to go ahead without a thorough discussion of these issues, which is what that party has been asking for for some time.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I believe there is a sense of urgency when a woman can step off an elevator and be shot by a gun held by 13- and 14-year-olds allegedly charged with this crime.

The Speaker: Could the leader place her second question, please.

Mrs McLeod: That is why every passing day adds to the urgency of this issue. It is not a time for long, thorough discussions. It is a time for action. Every day is a factor in public safety.

The Speaker: Could the leader place a second question, please.

NON-UTILITY GENERATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, I want to return today to the very interesting deal that Hydro recently made with Suncor. It will not surprise you that we want to return to this issue.

As we understand your responses in the House last week to our questions, Ontario Hydro has made a deal with Suncor in which it will pay Suncor not to proceed with building a cogeneration plant which would allow it to produce its own electricity. Basically, what that means is that Hydro is paying Suncor, a private sector company, to continue to buy electricity from Hydro. That, as I understand it, is a very direct subsidy by Ontario Hydro to Suncor.

Minister, will you confirm that by any definition the deal between Hydro and Suncor is a direct subsidy to Suncor, and will you tell us how much that subsidy is?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): No, I will not confirm that at all, because it is incorrect. And I would just say that this government, unlike the government when the member was the Minister of Energy, is determined to create jobs in Sarnia, Ontario, rather than in Manitoba, which they did when they signed an agreement with Manitoba Hydro.

1400

Mrs McLeod: It's interesting that the minister references deals by Manitoba, because I know of companies in northwestern Ontario that are looking at whether it is possible to purchase electricity from Manitoba in order to reduce the costs of purchasing electricity from Ontario Hydro. That is exactly the kind of concern we have about any special deals that Hydro is making with companies. Hydro has opened the barn doors so wide that it is going to be impossible to close them again.

The minister will surely be aware that the media reported on Friday that Falconbridge, a large mining company, has expressed an interest in getting a similar deal, because Falconbridge is another of those companies that have been expressing concerns about the cost of purchasing their electricity. Those same pulp and paper companies that were looking to Manitoba or to Minnesota to find alternatives to purchasing power from Ontario Hydro will undoubtedly be looking with interest on any special deals with Suncor.

Minister, I ask you, how many special deals is Ontario Hydro prepared to make with other companies to keep them buying electricity from Ontario Hydro, and how is Ontario Hydro going to decide just who gets the special deals?

Hon Mr Wildman: This is not a special deal, as the member indicates. This was an agreement made between Suncor and Ontario Hydro for an option to purchase, and it's been very clear that at the same time this was agreed to, there was a joint venture agreement made with Nova and Polysar and Dow Chemical in Sarnia for the purchase of electricity generated in the Sarnia area, again producing jobs in Sarnia.

It's been very clear, and I've made it clear repeatedly, that if other companies wish to make proposals to Ontario Hydro that are economic and in the interests of Ontario Hydro ratepayers, which will ensure the capacity of the companies to remain competitive, Ontario Hydro will consider such proposals. This is not a special deal.

Mrs McLeod: If this is not a special deal, then it really does beg the question: What is the basis? What's the policy direction? How is Hydro going to implement its new approaches to its large customers? From the minister's answer, I wonder if it will mean that anybody who submits a co-gen proposal, a proposal to produce electricity that Hydro does not act on, is going to get a special buyout provision from Ontario Hydro so they don't go ahead with their co-gen proposal.

At the end of the day, the issue that is of real concern is what this kind of deal will ultimately do to the cost of electricity for everybody who buys electricity in the province of Ontario. I mean everybody who buys electricity, from the major corporations that we're talking about to the family of four to the single mom on welfare. Hydro is not mandated to do special business deals; it's a public utility and its mandate, by law, is to sell power at cost to all who purchase power from Ontario Hydro.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the leader place a question, please.

Mrs McLeod: What will this special deal do to the cost of electricity not just for big customers, but for that family of four or that single mom on welfare? What will this do to Hydro rates?

Hon Mr Wildman: The agreement, which the member insists on calling a special deal, will not affect in any particularly significant way rates to any customers of Ontario Hydro, whether they be residential customers, business or industrial customers.

The member will know that the Ontario Energy Board hearings have begun today. One of the issues that will be dealt with in those hearings is questions of not just the rate, but how Ontario Hydro's rates will be charged to its customers in the best interests of Ontario Hydro ratepayers and the taxpayers of Ontario. I'm sure these matters will be explored and canvassed thoroughly before the Ontario Energy Board, and we look forward to the rulings and the recommendations of the board, which we expect in August.

PURCHASE OF LAND

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. On the weekend, I was thumbing through some back copies of Costa Rica Today and I came across this nugget of information.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): That sounds good to me.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I was bored watching the opening of the casino, to be quite frank. I note it's the first time the NDP have been at the opening of a casino that they weren't picketing; they were actually there for the opening. They were chanting, as a matter of fact, as they opened that casino.

Across this note on Costa Rica Today, I came across this little nugget. It said the Costa Rica Today newspaper reports, April 26, an offer from Ontario Hydro to purchase 12,500 hectares of environmentally sensitive land next to the Corcovado National Park for environmental preservation.

So I called Minister Counsellor Edwin Salas -- the staff did, the office. He confirms the story and adds, "My understanding is," in his words, "this is Maurice Strong's baby."

I would ask the minister of Hydro if he knows anything about this purchase and if he could explain why Ontario Hydro would be thinking about buying lands in Costa Rica for many millions of dollars, considering it has a $35-billion debt.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I must say that Costa Rica Today is not a periodical that I read regularly. I must have missed that edition. However, I would say, in answer to the question, that I will take it as notice and I will report back to the House.

Mr Stockwell: Maybe if the minister subscribed to Costa Rica Today, he could find out what's happening in his ministry a little quicker.

I will say we went on, and it says Strong met with the Costa Rican president in Ottawa late last month, and had "informal conversation" on the above agreement. "Why Hydro?" we asked Mr Salas, and he said, "Good question." Mr Salas answered it was probably less bureaucratic than dealing with government.

Federal officials whom we called today confirmed the estimated value of the property at around $10 million. Maybe you could ask Hydro officials why they would be looking at spending $10 million in Central America and how this is going to help the ratepayers in the province of Ontario.

Hon Mr Wildman: I'd be glad to ask that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Final supplementary.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I probably have one more. I was so overwhelmed with the casino opening that I was flipping through this when it came on. Luckily it was open and it gave me time to read Costa Rica Today, because I heard the chants from the NDP in the casino. "Yes, it's true," they shouted. "We have finally sold out."

I want to put finally to the Minister of Environment and Energy: Would you please contact the officials in Costa Rica and find out exactly how much money Ontario Hydro would be paying for this land and on whose authority Mr Strong in fact opened negotiations to buy this piece of property? Finally, I put to you, if in fact this offer has been made through informal or formal channels, will you stand in your place today and say, "Not dime one will be sent to Costa Rica from Ontario officials so as to drive the cost of hydro up in the province of Ontario for some environmental reason that came to mind from Mr Strong"?

Hon Mr Wildman: I've indicated that I will investigate and report back to the House. Ontario Hydro International has been active throughout the globe on a number of initiatives. I don't know of this one. I don't know if the member is correct. As he says, if it has been suggested that Ontario Hydro will invest in this way, action should be taken. If it has, I'll respond to the House.

1410

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation. Mr Minister, on May 2 you stated in this House, in response to my colleague Noble Villeneuve regarding the construction of the southern portion of Highway 416, that you personally met with the Honourable Art Eggleton, the minister responsible for the Canada infrastructure program, and that Mr Eggleton personally assured you that the infrastructure program had been fully committed and that there would not be any additional money coming from Ottawa for Highway 416.

I have in my hand a copy of a letter to Mr Jim Jordan, MP for Leeds-Grenville, from Art Eggleton, and I want to read two paragraphs:

"On Wednesday, May 11, 1994, when I made my statement concerning Highway 416, I was not aware of Prime Minister Chrétien's commitment to you.

"The federal government is prepared to pay one third of the cost of building the southern portion of 416, utilizing funds from the Canada-Ontario infrastructure program. The remaining two thirds of the funds would be the responsibility of the province of Ontario, with no funding required from the municipalities."

Minister, can you tell this House today whether you do or do not have a commitment from the federal government to pay one third of the $180-million southern portion of Highway 416?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I too have been favoured with a copy of the letter in question, a letter addressed to Mr Jim Jordan. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that the same Jim Jordan, MP, during the last federal campaign made a promise or a commitment that there would be federal participation vis-à-vis the 416. The province has long recognized the need to build the 416 and we've spent considerable money on the north section. But it's a vast commitment. Estimates run anywhere from $160 million to $190 million for the southern part.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): You cancelled the commitment.

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

Hon Mr Pouliot: By way of correction, when I met with Mr Eggleton a couple of weeks ago, Mr Eggleton assured me that the infrastructure money was fully committed and suggested that maybe if there were some unspent money, it could come back for consideration in the second phase.

"On Wednesday, May 11, 1994, when I made my statement concerning Highway 416, I was not aware of Prime Minister Chrétien's commitment to you." You see, Eggleton goes into Chrétien's office with his ideas and he comes out of the Prime Minister's office with Chrétien's ideas, obviously.

We welcome the commitment. Under the infrastructure program, there is little or no municipal money. We will be there. We're anxious to meet to work out the details.

Mr Sterling: Given that the letter says this money will be coming out of the federal infrastructure program funds, and we've already heard from you, and you've heard from Mr Eggleton, that the program is fully subscribed to, does the commitment from the federal government mean that new money has been found or that projects that have already been approved will be withdrawn?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Even the wisest sage in this House in terms of money, the Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance, with the highest of respect, sir, does not have answer to that question, for it is not his jurisdiction. We have a trans-Ontario highway to supplement the Trans-Canada Highway. We go it alone in Ontario, so $60 million or thereabouts is very welcome participation, very welcome news. It's a matter of working out the details, for we must commit the better part of $120 million, and as we have a newly found partner, it's a matter of arranging an agreement that will satisfy both parties.

Mr Sterling: I'm glad the minister is responding so favourably. Your government took the southern portion of 416 off the construction schedule. I do not believe that this government or any subsequent government will ever again receive the same kind of offer, $60 million to $70 million from the federal government, which I hold in my hand with regard to this letter.

The engineering work is done, as you know. So is the property appropriation. Given that projects under the infrastructure program should be completed within three years, will the minister immediately commit his government to the other two thirds of the cost of building the southern portion of 416 and get this project back on the rails?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right in stating that MTO has been pursuing, aggressively so, a property acquisition program. The engineering design is well advanced indeed. When it comes to building highways, last week it was the 407: 20,000 jobs, completion in four and a half years. Now, that's a commitment, the largest contract on highways in North America.

Let me share this with you. When we talk about the 416, since 1990 it has meant 1,500 jobs and $75 million, by 1996 it will mean $125 million and 2,500 jobs, and the 416 is the equivalent of 6,000 additional jobs. Then we begin to understand the importance of infrastructure.

It's a matter of working out the nuts and bolts. We might use the corporation. We will see if there is a possibility of tolling. But we must find $120 million to supplement the newly found $60 million, which is most welcome.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would also like to place a question to the Minister of Transportation on the same issue, but I would like my question to focus on the commitment of his government.

I remind the minister that this government, the then Minister of Transportation, now Minister of Municipal Affairs, in this House on November 20, 1990, assured our critic for Transportation that Highway 416 would be completed on time as planned and put in place by the previous government. That promise was broken no less than a year later, and there has still been no action to keep that commitment and get on with the completion of the full 416 project.

The federal government has now been prepared to look at putting money into helping this government keep the commitment this government made more than two years ago. I find it interesting that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is now wanting to criticize the federal government for at least wanting to help her own government keep its commitments.

Minister, I ask you today, are you now prepared to give this project the green light? Are you prepared, is the government of Ontario prepared, to keep your commitment to Ottawa and the Ottawa region and complete the 416 project on time?

Hon Mr Pouliot: When there is $60 million -- which is an innovation; we haven't had this happen before -- for a new initiative coming from the federal government, you will not find anyone on this side of the House criticizing; quite the contrary. A commitment has been honoured. This is cause for celebration. It's a matter of working out the details, and we're anxious to meet with Mr Eggleton. It will be done in a very, very short time. We have a new partner on the 416. All they wish to do in terms of financing is the nuts and bolts. Within a matter of days, we should be able to sit down and work out the details.

Mrs McLeod: Let me be absolutely clear about this. This is a project on which there has been one delay by this government after another, on which there has been one statement after another from a government that says it is committed to the project and to completing it on time, and then we discover it is the northern portion of the 416 that is to be completed, and not on time but a year later than was originally planned, and that up till now there has been no commitment from this government on the completion of the southern portion of the 416.

Minister, it is unprecedented that the federal government should have to step in and help your government fulfil its commitment to this particular project.

I ask you today, is this the end of the delays, the end of the stalls that say, "We can't go ahead with this unless we find private sector partners"? Are you prepared now to put the provincial money where your commitment is? Are you making a clear commitment to putting your dollars up to complete the 416 and complete it on time?

Hon Mr Pouliot: There is a certain protocol here. The letter was not sent to me. We have had no formal communication. But you're right, I wish to evaluate from the premise, how do we do it? That's what I'm saying here. We will get together, we'll work out the nuts and bolts, with the mindset that we must get it done. We must commit ourselves in this new partnership and build the 416 in its entirety, both the northern section and the southern section. Meetings will be focused on achieving just that.

1420

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy, with respect to your garbage policy across this province, but specifically in the GTA.

Your northern colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie is quoted in this weekend's Sault Star -- I think it was Saturday's Sault Star -- saying he supports an environmental assessment of the Rail Cycle North proposal to ship garbage from the greater Toronto area to the abandoned Adams mine site in Kirkland Lake. Do you support the member for Sault Ste Marie's statement?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I've discussed this with my colleague from Sault Ste Marie and I read his comments as quoted in the newspaper with interest. My understanding of his comments was that he is in favour of an environmental assessment of a proposal to transport waste to the Adams mine site. I've said repeatedly in this House and outside this House that there is nothing to stand in the way of a proponent proceeding with an environmental assessment on such a proposal.

Mr Tilson: I think the member for Sault Ste Marie went a bit further than that. What he said in the Sault Star was, "The province turning rural land into huge garbage dumps doesn't make sense." That's what he said. That's a lot further than what you said, that he's simply supporting an environmental assessment, which presumably municipalities here would pay for. That's not what he said. He simply says your policy does not make sense.

Will you commit yourself to support the member for Sault Ste Marie and remove the government policy that forces municipalities to process their waste within their borders?

Hon Mr Wildman: I attempt to support my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie in almost all ways, except one.

ACCESS TO FAMILY SUPPORT INFORMATION

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I have a question for the Attorney General. As the Attorney General is aware, the only telephone access for clients of the family support plan is through the central inquiry line. However, because of the technology used, people who have a rotary dial cannot access this service and only people with touchtone can access the inquiry line. Given that the inquiry service should be available to all family support plan clients, can the Attorney General inform this House about what action is being taken to remedy this situation?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I appreciate the question from the member for York East. He raises an important issue. The central inquiry line is set up to answer as many calls as possible, using the automated payment and enforcement information feature and access to an inquiry agent. The service is responding to over 200,000 calls per month.

The member is quite right that rotary dial phones cannot access the central inquiry line. Unfortunately, there currently is no technology available to solve that problem. However, I can tell the member that a separate number for accessing an inquiry agent will soon be available to all those FSP clients who have rotary dial phones.

I am aware, I would tell the member, that this has been an issue particularly for some rural areas. I'm pleased we're able to respond to that concern.

Mr Malkowski: I have a supplementary question that raises another issue of access to the central inquiry line. It's concerning the access to the inquiry line for people who are deaf, hard-of-hearing or disabled. Can the Attorney General tell me what, if any, arrangements have been made so that deaf, hard-of-hearing and disabled clients of the family service plan can access the enforcement and payment information available through the central inquiry number?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Yes, I am able to tell the member that a text telephone, TTY, is available in my ministry for access by persons who are deaf, hard-of-hearing or disabled. Those clients may contact the number and the information will be taken and given to staff in the family support plan. FSP staff will then investigate the issues that are raised by caller and they will reply over the TTY to the client. The number is 416-326-4012. This number will be appearing in all FSP publications as they are revised and/or reprinted. I would recommend that all members of this House have this number available in their constituency offices. Again, that number is 416-326-4012.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy, also having to do with Tony Martin's departure from your party's position on the disposal of waste. As you know, it has now been reported that Sault Ste Marie MPP Tony Martin has said: "If an environmental assessment shows that a Kirkland Lake mine would be safe for garbage, the province shouldn't be turning valuable farm land outside Toronto to dumps."

In your previous response you said you would not be opposed to an environmental assessment hearing which includes the transportation of waste from the GTA to another area. If there is such an environmental assessment hearing which indeed permits the transportation of waste from, let us say, the Toronto area to the Kirkland Lake area, will you and your government support that decision even though it contravenes your own Bill 143? The question is, are you or are you not supportive of an environmental assessment decision which permits the transfer of Toronto waste to a place outside of the GTA?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The question is somewhat premature. There hasn't even been a hearing, much less a decision, so I can hardly support a decision.

The member asked me if I would support an environmental assessment. That is not news; I've said that repeatedly. If a proponent wishes to proceed with an environmental assessment on the transportation of waste outside of the GTA, they are quite free to do so and to proceed. Of course, the Environmental Assessment Board would have to take into account the law, Bill 143, and government policy in adjudicating the assessment proceedings.

Mr Offer: So now we've got it: The NDP caucus is split on this matter. The minister has been playing fast and loose with this issue. Minister, you have said on the one hand that you will support an environmental assessment hearing. However, if that hearing happens to rule that the waste can be transported from an area such as Toronto to an area outside of the GTA, then it must comply with Bill 143. The fact is that Bill 143 does not permit the transfer of waste.

In view of the many community groups that have said your policy is wrong and your own members who are saying your policy is wrong, that Bill 143 is wrong, are you now prepared to say that you will follow and receive an environmental assessment report and decision which indeed permits the transport of waste from the Toronto area to outside of the Toronto area? The question is clear; what isn't is your position.

Hon Mr Wildman: I remain committed, as I said I was in my previous answer. The question is just a repetition of the previous answer.

I would make one point, though. Perhaps unlike our colleagues across the aisle, in this caucus we believe that individual members of caucus can freely express their views without being muzzled. To say that my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie should not be able to express his own personal view I think is repugnant.

1430

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Minister, I'm very concerned about the image of Ontario as a place to do business, as a good place for business expansion and a good place to create jobs.

You must hear the concerns that are expressed on a day-to-day basis, concerns about high taxes. I'm not just talking about one tax; I'm talking about the whole package of taxes. I'm talking about health premiums that have gone up 80% and workers' compensation premiums that have gone up 40% during the same period of time that salaries have only increased by 20%. I'm talking about the debt load, the problem that business has with the debt load in the province of Ontario. I'm talking about labour legislation and the red tape that is a hindrance to business in our province. These are killing opportunities for new jobs. The economy of Ontario has been very slow and very painful to grow.

My question to you is, do you recognize the lost opportunities for business growth and job creation that we are experiencing in Ontario, and are you prepared and have you, around the cabinet table, fought for the measures that are required to promote business: reduction in taxes, cutting expenditures and cutting the red tape in Ontario?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): The member opposite has asked questions on similar things, as have members of his caucus before, and I have responded on a number of those points, and I'll try, in summary form, to run through it.

Those very items have often been in discussion around the cabinet table and in caucus. The member will know, for example, both in terms of our belief in the need to preserve the sustainability of medicare and also to deal with issues of government expenditures, that this government brought health care expenditures from a decade-long experience of double-digit growth year after year after year, on a $17-billion budget, one third of government expenditures, from that double-digit growth down to less than 1% for the last two years and less than 2% the year before that, an amazing turnaround in that.

It was accomplished through some very difficult restructuring initiatives, but we've done that because we believe both in the sustainability and also in the arguments that the member makes around the overall tax burden and the deficit level.

With respect to the Workers' Compensation Board, we also believe there needed to be initiatives to bring that unfunded liability under control and sustain rates into the future.

With respect to energy cost, there's been a major restructuring which has brought about a freeze and then no less than inflation in growth in energy rates, a major turnaround from the years before that has been experienced here.

With respect to red tape, the clearing-the-path initiative announced in the budget in terms of the implementation of it will move a great distance with respect to dealing with small business concerns.

So all of those things that the member said are in fact things that we have talked about. What we believe is that we have struck the commonsense balance as opposed to the American Revolution suggestion.

Mr David Johnson: To help the minister, can I suggest a couple of other things that have happened? There will be about 80,000 fewer people working in the province of Ontario when this government expires in 1995, more than likely, than there were when you took office in 1990; about 80,000 fewer people employed in the province of Ontario, by your own numbers.

The debt in the province of Ontario will have more than doubled, from under $50 billion to over $90 billion. These are tragic.

The business community is not looking for tinkering; the business community is looking for a clear signal that this province welcomes business, encourages job creation.

Minister, what is required are actions, such as the Common Sense Revolution, real actions: 30% reduction in personal income tax, payroll tax reductions, 20% cut in government expenditures, the elimination of the deficit. This is what is required in the province of Ontario, and I'm asking you, as the minister responsible, will you fight in the cabinet for tax reductions --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place his question, please.

Mr David Johnson: -- for cuts in expenditures, for job creation and business growth in the province of Ontario? Will you fight for those, Minister?

Hon Ms Lankin: I think that I've indicated on a number of occasions the steps this government has taken, and I believe very strongly they are the correct steps and the correct balance.

The member talks about unemployment in the province, and of course we have seen devastating numbers with respect to unemployment through this recession and through a number of issues around adjustments, the new trading relations taking place etc. But the member suggests and puts that forward in a way that it was somehow unique to Ontario. May I suggest to the member that he check the numbers and take a look at what is happening right across this country.

One of the numbers which I think would be very useful to look at is the fact that right now unemployment in Ontario is down, net, about 24,000 while across Canada it's only down, net, about 12,000. Why? Because there are other jurisdictions that are not seeing an increase in the number of jobs being created. In fact, every day they are still losing jobs. So right across Canada, the situation is very difficult with respect to unemployment, but the best growth, right now and projected for the future, is Ontario.

With respect to this member and his comment about his party's American Revolution, I didn't quite realize how American it was until I had an opportunity to read a very interesting editorial.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her reply, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: I will, Mr Speaker. With respect to the decreases on income tax that he just talked about, I'll just make one quote and then I'll wrap up.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Bunch of Americans; come on.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Lankin: Sitting right here, it says, "As his own figures show, the tax cuts Harris is proposing would save someone with an income of $25,000 about $850 a year, while an individual earning three times as much would save $2,922." Reaganomics, the trickle-down theory.

The Speaker: The question's been answered. Would the minister take her seat.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): My question is for the Attorney General. Minister, quite often we'll grab the Toronto newspapers or one of the daily newspapers and we'll read that there's growing crime among young people. My constituents want to know, is this the Young Offenders Act only? Is that what the problem is?

They read about this. They hear about the gangland-style happenings in the schools, youth gangs are out there, and they want to know whether there really is a change happening with our youth. Is it the Young Offenders Act that really is driving all this? Is there a huge number of young people out there in our schools who are now turning to violence as a way of life, and is the Young Offenders Act really responsible for all of this change?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I want to thank the member for raising such an important question because I think everybody in the province is concerned about this perceived increase in crime.

What we need to be very aware of is that there certainly is a huge increase in the reported crimes by young people. More data are used to describe the nature and extent of youth crime and that relates only to the youth that are involved. This is important because there are real variations as you look across the province in the rate of reporting offences, the decision to lay charges and the use of alternatives to court, and that can distort the apparent crime picture substantially.

For example, since we began our action as a government against violence in schools, many school jurisdictions have adopted a zero tolerance initiative which relates to bullying in the school yard and fights. They now report all those occurrences to the police and then the police make a decision as to whether or not they will charge, and that certainly changes the statistics.

According to the statistics developed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, there has been a trend towards police laying more charges more frequently in cases of crimes that are committed by youth in Canada since the Young Offenders Act was put into place, and it's important because the evidence suggests that the police have changed their charging practice --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: -- since 16- and 17-year-olds became the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice system which was created by the Young Offenders Act.

1440

Mr O'Connor: Minister, to help me pull this together then, our friends up there from the media, is it that they're painting the picture more graphically? Are there more violent crimes happening? Is that a problem? Is it the way that it's being report or is there an increase? Is there an actual increase in violent crimes happening in our schools?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member should know that the proportion of all persons who are charged who are youths has remained substantially unchanged over the past seven years; 62% of young offenders are charged with property offences, and almost half of those are charged with theft under $1,000. You need to have that perspective.

With respect to violent crime, there are three levels of offences, as I think the member knows. Assault level 1 offences involve no weapon or no serious injury, and in 1992, 15% of all young offenders who were charged with a violent crime were charged with the level 1 offences.

The offences resulting in the most serious personal injury accounted for only 2.4% of the youths who were charged with a violent offence. These charges could include crimes like homicide, like attempted murder or sexual assault. Those are very serious crimes, and even if it is only 2.4% of the charges, it is very serious.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We need to recognize that this is so and take action accordingly.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will know that on Thursday, April 28, your caucus held a meeting with representatives of a number of seniors organizations. At that meeting there was no information at all passed on on your unilateral decision to change the payment mechanism for out-of-country emergency coverage.

At 4 o'clock that same afternoon you issued a news release announcing the cuts and the change to the system. When did you make this decision, apart from the discourtesy that was involved to the seniors groups, and on what advice did you make the decision since it's apparent that there was absolutely no consultation with any of the seniors groups that appeared with your caucus?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As our government has struggled with its preparation for this year's budget, a budget where the Minister of Finance had made the commitment that we would attempt to maintain jobs, expand our infrastructure spending, reduce the deficit and not impose any new taxes, we had extensive discussions as to how we can better manage all of our open-ended programs, particularly those in the health care system and in Community and Social Services, in a way that would maintain as far as possible the level of standards and services for the most number of people possible and at the same time get away from the kind of double-digit increases in spending that had been the practice during the term of the previous government and during the 1980s, which I think most people in Ontario agree we can no longer afford. During those discussions, examination of our out-of-country health care spending was very much part of the agenda.

Mrs Sullivan: You're not controlling spending at all, Minister. At the time that you introduced this policy, you told this House that you were following the example of some -- a few but not all -- of the other provinces. You will know that the federal Minister of Health has issued warnings to those provinces that are contravening the Canada Health Act that their transfer payments will be reduced as a consequence of their not following the Canada Health Act.

Your decision clearly contravenes section 11 of the Canada Health Act and it's an infringement of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms under section 6 of the charter.

If you proceed with this policy, you will lose the $100 million that you indicated to this House that you will be saving otherwise. In fact, this is a lose-lose situation.

I'm asking you again if you will withdraw this badly crafted, badly thought-out policy and support all of medicare's principles, including the guarantee of portability.

Hon Mrs Grier: As so often happens, the statements that the member makes in this House are not quite correct. The federal government has not in fact said to the provinces whose payment for hospital beds outside this country is at the same level or lower than ours that this is a contravention of the Canada Health Act.

All of the provinces and the federal government established a committee last fall to begin to look at some of the inconsistent interpretations of the Canada Health Act. I can assure the member, as I have assured anybody else who's asked me, that should that come to the conclusion that Ontario is in violation of the Canada Health Act, we would certainly be prepared to re-examine our policies.

But let me say to the member that when she says we haven't contained health care costs, she is absolutely and completely wrong, yet again. In fact, through our containment of health care costs, we were able to say to the seniors of this province, "You can remain the only seniors in the country who do not have a copayment for your drugs." We were able to say to the people of this province suffering from cancer that we could put an extra $15 million into cancer treatment to reduce waiting lists in this fiscal year. We are able to say that as a public health initiative, we will immunize every grade 7 student in this province against hepatitis B. Those are the kinds of advances and improvements we are making in the health care system as a result of the way we're managing it these days.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the charming Minister of Housing. I'm sure the minister had brought to her attention a story in yesterday's Sun about the non-profit housing corporation in Peterborough known as Sunshine Homes. In this story by James Wallace, it is reported that the board hired then-president Christl Steckel's son Peter as its maintenance superintendent. Janet Steckel, Peter's wife and Christl's daughter-in-law, was also on the board. The non-profit board awarded contracts to a company run by Janet and Peter Steckel for landscaping, snow-clearing and unit repair. The board improperly lent Peter Steckel $1,796 so he could buy equipment to carry out the work at the housing project. Do you approve of this, Madam Minister?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The audit was conducted, as are all the audits conducted by the Ministry of Housing, because there was a concern by the ministry about affairs in that particular development. The audit made recommendations; the recommendations have been followed.

Mrs Marland: What concerns us is that every day we hear of another non-profit housing corporation that has a problem. We've got thousands out there in this province that haven't yet been audited. I'm very interested in the fact that in the minister's response she says that they carried out the instructions of the auditor. However, we now know that isn't so. "The auditor also found the board understated the surplus in its bank accounts and didn't keep proper records."

Apparently, Christl Steckel said that both the board and the government knew what was going on. "A key recommendation by the auditor called for Christl and Janet Steckel to resign. The government disagreed and allowed Christl Steckel to remain on the board." Madam Minister, I ask you again, your ministry obviously condoned what was going on in yet another non-profit housing corporation.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I don't think that was a question, but if it was, it was wrong.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question today is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The minister will know that it's well known that this government continues to support the further development of an ethanol industry in Ontario.

The recent announcement by the ministers of Economic Development and Trade and of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs to add certainty to the value of the current provincial tax exemptions is another example of this government's commitment to economic development in rural Ontario.

Ontario corn producers in rural communities in southwestern Ontario now await a matching federal response to the request from potential investors in an ethanol plant in Chatham for greater certainty regarding the federal excise tax. Given the potential employment and economic benefits generated by ethanol plants, what steps is the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs taking to ensure that the federal government will also support the Chatham ethanol project?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I thank the member for the question. She is quite correct. The provincial government since 1980 in this province has supported the ethanol industry by having an exemption from the gasoline tax. In Ontario, it's 14.7 cents per litre. In 1992, the federal government saw the wisdom of that policy and it also granted an exemption for methanol and ethanol to the tune of 8.5 cents per litre.

The Ontario government went further than that. We spent some time looking at ethanol as an industry to create jobs and provide opportunities for the sale of corn in rural Ontario. In February this year, we announced that we would guarantee the continued tax holiday on ethanol until the year 2010 on a project-by-project basis. This meant that private business -- in fact, we have a company that's interested in setting up an ethanol plant in Chatham and we're very pleased with that investment. It was based on our continuing to provide that exemption.

1450

Mrs MacKinnon: As the minister has noted, there has been an increasing amount of concern raised over ethanol by the Canadian Petroleum Products Institute following the provincial announcement. How is the minister responding to these concerns?

Hon Mr Buchanan: The first point I'd like to make is that my counterpart, the Honourable Ralph Goodale, the Liberal Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa, has been very supportive. We continue to write letters to him and talk to him about supporting a project, particularly at Chatham, and other projects that might come forward.

The petroleum industry, that industry that believes in competition and free enterprise, apparently has decided that having ethanol as a competitor as a renewable fuel is not good for the industry. We don't think that is the case.

We've certainly talked to our colleagues in Ottawa, and I would encourage my colleagues across the way, particularly in the Liberal Party. They passed another resolution on the weekend, after four days of debate, saying they support the ethanol industry and economic renewal in rural Ontario.

I think it's time, because we've been told on many occasions by the alternative fuels group that the federal cabinet in Ottawa was going to make a decision on supporting the ethanol industry, so I would encourage my colleagues across the way to talk to their counterparts in Ottawa about the importance of ethanol. I hope they've already done that so we can continue to have good investment opportunities for jobs in rural Ontario in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for Mississauga North.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, I would like to indicate my dissatisfaction with the response given to me by the Minister of Environment and Energy to my question earlier in question period, and I will be filing the necessary papers.

The Speaker: I knew the member would do that. The Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I know the member is quite within his rights to file such a statement of dissatisfaction and request a late show. I just want to inform him and the House, unfortunately I will be leaving this afternoon to go to Quebec City to attend the interprovincial ministers' meeting, along with aboriginal leaders, for the next two days and so will be unavailable. If the member would like to wait until Thursday or next week, when we might be able to do this.

The Speaker: As has been the practice in this chamber, if the two members involved had an opportunity to communicate with each other outside of the chamber, perhaps a suitable arrangement could be arrived at.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of the citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any new bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I will affix my signature to the petition.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage, no matter where they are, with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follow the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I happily affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy in his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice, and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas the bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I am in total agreement with this petition and I have affixed my name to it.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I have a petition signed by several hundred members of the Bruce Trail club and other members living on the Niagara Escarpment.

"We, the friends of the Niagara Escarpment, wholeheartedly support Noel Duignan's private member's Bill 62, An Act to amend the Environmental Protection Act in respect of the Niagara Escarpment."

As you can see, Mr Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with this petition and I will sign it.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas all students are entitled to the same educational resources regardless of where they live or which school they choose to attend; and

"Whereas most Catholic school boards and rural school boards do not have the assessment base of their public school or urban school board counterparts; and

"Whereas these assessment-poor schools are able to spend far less on each of their students than assessment-rich boards;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now and restructure the way in which municipal and provincial tax dollars are apportioned, so that Ontario's schools are funded, not only fully, but with equity and equality."

I will affix my signature to this document.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from Middlesex constituents who utilize emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in the village of Newbury. Some 16,000 people in the Four Counties area are dependent upon the services at Four Counties General Hospital. They petition the Legislative Assembly:

"To call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of 24-hour emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments and to ensure that rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are most certainly entitled."

I've signed my name to this petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a petition from the Council for a Tobacco-Free Region of Peel and it is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is in support of plain packaging of tobacco products and it reads:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1500

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here, three pages, that has been sent to me by Claudia Kempster from Waterloo. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Theatres Act was amended in 1981 with the intention of keeping certain viewing materials away from children and advances in technology have occurred to such an extent that the concern for children covered by this legislation is negated as it does not cover electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games; and

"Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the proliferation of violent and sexually explicit video games; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario should be making every effort to regulate the distribution of adult video games and ensure that games designed for adults are clearly marked as such; and

"Whereas Bill 135, the Theatres Amendment Act, 1993, a private member's bill introduced by Waterloo North MPP Elizabeth Witmer, would amend the definition of 'film' so that the electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games come within the purview of the act, particularly the classification system,

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

"That Bill 135 be passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as quickly as possible."

I here do affix my signature.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition here:

"To Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

This is signed by about 130 people in my area.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have petitions with approximately 400 signatures on them, and a number of them are from my constituency of Eglinton.

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on the gender of the individuals; and

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes; and

"Whereas Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that distinctions based on the gender of family members are unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of Christian faith communities oppose ending such discrimination,

"We, the undersigned, as members of Christian faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I've affixed my signature to these petitions.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition with several hundred names, a petition circulated by the Downtown Business Improvement Area in Prescott, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to not proceed with the plain packaging provisions of Bill 119, the Tobacco Control Act, until a full economic impact study is completed and a thorough analysis of what, if any, health benefits will be derived."

I'm affixing my signature.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products.

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across the interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

That's signed by nearly 30 people in my riding.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition here from Messiah Lutheran Church in Waterloo:

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

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, it may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

It has been signed by about 40 people.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF STONEY CREEK ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr62, An Act respecting the City of Stoney Creek.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, I believe we have an agreement, so I'll seek consent for that agreement from the House. In the consideration of Bill 120, the government will take 10 minutes of time and the two opposition parties will split the remaining time.

In the consideration in committee of the whole House of Bills 110 and 138, any votes will be stacked and deferred until 5:45, and we would proceed into committee of the whole after the vote on Bill 120.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

RESIDENTS' RIGHTS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES IMMEUBLES D'HABITATION

Ms Gigantes moved third reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend certain statutes concerning residential property / Projet de loi 120, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les immeubles d'habitation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Does the minister have any opening remarks?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): If I could, Mr Speaker, I'll reserve my comments till the end. Thank you.

The Speaker: Any debate? I recognize the honourable member for Mississauga South.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): Today Bill 120 will pass third and final reading. As a result, municipalities will no longer be able to use zoning bylaws to restrict the location and number of apartments in houses. As well, thousands of care homes ranging from retirement residences to homes that provide specialized care to vulnerable persons will be regulated by the Landlord and Tenant Act and related laws.

1510

The Minister of Housing will no doubt party tonight, but there are hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who will not celebrate the passage of Bill 120. They are the people whose concerns the government has ignored: home owners, transitional housing for abused women and teenaged mothers, care homes and the residents they serve, fire chiefs, municipalities, and the list goes on and on.

On behalf of the thousands of people who have found flaws in Bill 120, I tabled 40 amendments to the bill. Only one of my amendments is included in the final version of Bill 120. That tells you what utter disregard the government has for the critics of its bill and its ideology.

Among those who oppose Bill 120 are the residents and operators of transitional or second-stage housing, such as the Emily Murphy second-stage residences in Stratford, which offer abused women and their children protected and supportive accommodation while they rebuild their lives.

Two conditions are critical to the success of second-stage housing. First, the residents can live in second-stage homes for a limited time so that the homes will continue to be available to other families that are recovering from domestic abuse; second, house rules restrict male visitors, since many women in second-stage housing continue to be threatened by their former partners.

These are also the concerns of the Massey Centre for Women, which, among other programs, provides transitional housing to single teenaged mothers. Many of these young mothers are still children themselves. They are continuing their education while learning to care for themselves and their infants. They often come from abusive situations. They may have lived on the streets. They may have been threatened by violent partners, drug pushers or pimps. For these teenagers, there must be restrictions on the period of occupancy and strict house rules. The Emily Murphy second-stage residences and the Massey Centre for Women are threatened by Bill 120.

The government did amend the bill to address one of their concerns: restrictions on the period of occupancy. These programs can ask residents to leave if the program lasts two years or less and the term of the program has expired.

However, the NDP government refuses to recognize that strict house rules, which are not allowed under the Landlord and Tenant Act, are critical to the success of these programs. The Minister of Housing says, "Call the police if an unwanted visitor won't leave." But how likely is an abused woman to call the police if someone who had repeatedly beaten her up is in her apartment and threatening her? What is more, these programs will not be able to prevent men from moving into the women's residences.

Let's face it: Bill 120 just won't work for second-stage residences and the Massey Centre. The minister would rather put these programs in jeopardy than swallow her pride and exempt them from the bill. Why, we have to wonder, does her government want to jeopardize the very programs it funds and promotes? Perhaps to save money.

In congregate living situations where facilities are shared by several residents, there need to be more rules than in apartment buildings with self-contained units. Other specialized programs also have told us that under the Landlord and Tenant Act, many of their rules would no longer be permitted, thus jeopardizing their programs.

For instance, Ecuhome, which operates under the leadership of seven churches and is dedicated to housing homeless people, allows residents to set their own terms of living cooperatively. This form of governance conflicts with part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Another problem that affects all care homes is the lack of a fast-track eviction process for tenants who become a threat to their co-residents and whose care needs surpass what the home can provide. Dr Ernie Lightman recommended such a process in his report on unregulated tenancy, as did many parties that made submissions on Bill 120.

I realize fast-track eviction is contentious because of the potential for abusing the process, but there can be no doubt that such a process is needed in many circumstances. For example, between 60% and 70% of Ecuhome's residents are recovering from drug or alcohol abuse. The ability to live in a dry setting is essential to the recovery of many. The continuing presence of a person who breaks the no-alcohol rule threatens the health and future of all residents who have a history of substance abuse, but there will be no quick way to evict a resident who insists on breaking this house rule.

The minister has said the eviction measures in the Landlord and Tenant Act are adequate. I beg to differ. It takes a few months to get a writ of possession, and if the tenant appeals the decision, it could take up to a year to evict the tenant.

I could go on and on about programs that are threatened by Bill 120. There are the special care homes which house former psychiatric patients. There are non-profit homes for persons with developmental disabilities. These programs provide supportive housing to some of the most vulnerable members of society. Their successful operating arrangements are impossible under the Landlord and Tenant Act. I ask the government again: If it isn't broken, why fix it?

While I could say a great deal more about the care home provisions of Bill 120, I must use my remaining time to address the second half of the bill, which allows one apartment in practically every detached, semi-detached or row house in Ontario. This half of Bill 120 has undergone no changes other than to add financial penalties for offences and to clarify that a garden suite can contain just one unit.

I will briefly address the concerns of home owners, tenants and municipalities with respect to the accessory apartment measures. Today's passage of Bill 120 sounds the death knell for Ontario's neighbourhoods of single-family homes. The Minister of Housing says single-family-home zoning is snob zoning. She discredits the views of hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who chose to buy homes in single-family neighbourhoods. Home owners are worried that Bill 120 will devalue the biggest investment of their lifetime. They paid a premium for a single-family home and they expect at least to have a say in changes to the zoning of their neighbourhood rather than the NDP government's dictatorial approach.

Home owners' concerns are valid and real. Several presentations to the general government committee came from residents and municipal officials in areas where accessory apartments have caused serious problems already. Many of these problems -- for instance, too many tenants in one unit, poor maintenance, excessive noise and violations of property standards -- could be prevented by restricting accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes. However, the government would not consider my amendment suggesting this restriction either.

Home owners are not experts in landlord and tenant law. Many will rent out accessory apartments without fully understanding their rights and responsibilities as landlords. They will just think: "Great. Here's a way to help pay for the mortgage." But what if the home owner rents to the tenant from hell who does not pay the rent, parties through the night on a regular basis or smokes in a non-smoking home? Eviction proceedings can take as long as a year. That is enough time for a home owner to default on his or her mortgage.

How many home owners realize that a tenant can deny the home owner access to the apartment to show it to prospective buyers? An uncooperative tenant can make it virtually impossible to sell a home.

How many purchasers of homes containing apartments realize they are restricted by the levels of rent set by the previous owners, even if those levels are far less than what the market will bear?

Another rent control issue is how to finance the cost of renovating or repairing an accessory apartment. If the apartment needs a lot of work, the home owner will not be able to recover the costs through rent revenues. If the home owner can't afford necessary repairs, he or she will have no choice but to shut down the unit.

Having looked at some of the implications of Bill 120 for home owners, let us consider the tenants. Even after legalizing accessory apartments, there is no guarantee that these apartments will be safe, decent housing. This year we have had four deaths from two basement apartment fires in Mississauga. The government has ignored most of the recommendations that arose from both coroners' inquests into these tragedies.

For instance, Bill 120 does not mandate the inspection of existing accessory apartments. It does not establish municipal registries of accessory apartments for the use of bylaw enforcement officers and fire and police departments. The bill's requirement for obtaining a search warrant is unworkable, according to municipal officials and fire chiefs.

The government had a chance to improve fire safety, it had a chance to pass the amendments I introduced, but it did nothing. Indeed, the government's changes to the fire code for accessory apartments were ready one year ago but have yet to be implemented. We can't help wondering if making the fire code changes sooner could have prevented several deaths from basement apartment fires. As far as I'm concerned, that is on the shoulders of this government, not this party.

1520

It is not too late for other legislative changes to improve safety in the event of a fire. If the government requires inspections of accessory apartments as a condition for granting a mortgage or insurance, this would help ensure that these apartments are safe. I hope the government will introduce such legislation as soon as possible.

In my remaining minutes, I want to address the municipal concerns about Bill 120.

Today, with one stroke of its ideological pen, the NDP is eliminating decades of municipal planning. No longer will local government, the level of government that is closest to the people, be able to plan for the future of residential neighbourhoods. The NDP government is moving Ontario another step towards centralized, Big Brother control of our lives.

The government is ignoring millions of dollars that municipalities have already spent to implement the Land Use Planning for Housing policy statement, which set goals for intensification but left it up to the municipalities to decide how to meet those goals.

Ironically, the government is even ignoring the recommendations of its own Sewell commission that the province should set policies and let the municipalities decide how to implement them.

Bill 120 will result in the downloading of costs from the province to local levels of government, possibly resulting in property tax hikes. There will be no way to ensure that the property tax assessment of a home containing an accessory apartment is any higher than the assessment of a similar house with a finished basement that is occupied by the home owner.

The province has also made it clear that it will not allow development charges for the creation of accessory apartments in existing homes. If there are additional costs for services to the residents of accessory apartments, municipalities and school boards will have to pass on those costs in two possible ways: by raising property taxes or by increasing development charges for new homes. Either option will impede this province's fragile economic recovery.

Municipalities will also have to incur many other costs. There will be an increased demand for inspections to ensure compliance with the building and fire codes and other property standards. But who pays for the inspections? The municipalities, through property tax revenues. Similarly, large bureaucracies may be needed to process the search warrants that officials will require before entering apartments when violations of safety standards are suspected. Again, the municipalities and their property taxpayers will foot the bill.

There is one more section of Bill 120 to address: measures which permit municipalities to approve the placement of garden suites, or granny flats, for up to 10 years. I introduced amendments that would restrict the occupancy of garden suites to disabled or senior relatives. Without such restrictions, I fear that garden suites will not be accepted and will not be an option for helping seniors and disabled persons live in relative independence near their families.

Another barrier to the acceptance of garden suites is their appearance. The government does not intend to make regulations for garden suites. Without regulations, it is unlikely that these units will be attractive, further hindering their acceptance as a housing option for seniors and disabled persons. Furthermore, without uniform standards, it will be hard to establish an industry to produce garden suites.

In summary, Bill 120 is fatally flawed. The irony is that instead of producing more affordable housing, the bill may do just the opposite. People will decide that it is not worth the regulatory hassle to establish a care home. Home owners will shut down accessory units because they have no way to recover the costs of necessary repairs. Rent control will dampen the availability of care homes and accessory apartments, just as it has led to an inadequate supply of rental apartments in larger buildings. When it comes to creating affordable housing, the government has shot itself in the foot.

Our concerns as the Progressive Conservative caucus in Ontario are also around the process with which Bill 120 has been handled. We had in excess of four weeks of public hearings to ask the public to come before the all-party standing committee of this Legislature and give their comments and their input to this legislation. Unfortunately, this government has chosen to ignore that input in the most serious areas that I have addressed in my comments this afternoon.

We feel that if you really are sincere about asking the public for input and you subject the taxpayers to the expense that represents, because holding public hearings for a month when the House isn't sitting does cost thousands and thousands of dollars, and then you choose to turn around and ignore those comments, it makes an absolute sham of the process.

Then, to end the whole mismanagement of this bill, we end up with a closure motion, which means that this government decided that after the public hearings, it would not let us work through the bill clause by clause to place our amendments and address the concerns of the public. If the minister didn't wish to do that, that's her choice, but certainly both opposition parties had a number of amendments they wished to place to try to address the concerns of the public. But this government decided that it would not allow us that privilege, that democratic right to represent the concerns of the people who have elected us, but would move a closure motion which limits the debate.

In this case, it was an appalling situation, because we were not even at the end of the session. It wasn't as though we were out of sitting time of this Legislature and this bill had to be rammed through in the last few days of a sitting. That closure motion was placed in excess of two months before the end of this sitting of this House, and here we are today on third reading with our 20 minutes, each caucus, to speak.

Quite frankly, I hope I never have to be part of a process again that I have been part of with Bill 120. Hopefully, this government will never be here long enough to bring, first of all, an omnibus bill which deals with two very serious areas of legislation impacting thousands of people in this province, and to bring those two matters together in one omnibus bill so that it could shuffle them through, one on top of the other, instead of giving each matter independent legislation.

Originally, Mr Speaker, as I know you are aware, we did have an individual bill dealing with basement apartments. This government decided it would change that bill and add to it the other section dealing with care homes. It was their way, in our opinion, of ramming two things through at once, both of which they know are not acceptable to the majority of people in this province. They will find out at the next election just how unacceptable and how strongly rejected Bill 120 is by the majority of people in this province. I regret the fact that very serious, much-needed programs for the most vulnerable people in our society will not be able to continue once this bill is enacted.

I will leave the remainder of my time, Mr Speaker, for my colleague.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate on third reading?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I would like to start my comments by suggesting to you, Mr Speaker, that it's regrettable that at the end of the day, our party is unable to support Bill 120 and some of the very good and useful recommendations that were put forward by Dr Ernie Lightman, who I note is in the Speaker's gallery today. His good work and many of the recommendations he put forward in extending rights to the most vulnerable citizens in our province unfortunately cannot be supported, because this is an omnibus piece of legislation that says, "Take it or leave it." You either take the good with the bad, or you don't take it at all.

1530

That's an unacceptable position to be put in. That's the way this government now operates. It has become highly political. Its only mandate is to think about what's going to happen in the next election. If that means ramming legislation through the House using an omnibus method, so be it. If that means a variety of things gets left out of the legislation or that there's less emphasis on the aspects of the legislation that need greater detail and attention given to them, so be it. If you force time allocation and have to come to the House to vote in committee of the whole on clause-by-clause, so be it. Disregard what the opposition has to say about the legislation. Disregard the stakeholders, those people who provide the programs.

If I felt in my heart that this government truly wanted to protect residents, those most vulnerable citizens in our province, I would even have supported this legislation holus-bolus. But at the end of the day there's another agenda at work here. It's the silent agenda, and that is to completely dismantle the entire system of transitional rehab housing programs that exist.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Shame on you.

Mr Cordiano: Oh, yes. The minister shakes her head, but it was repeated over and over again in this set of hearings around Bill 120 that many of the centres and many of the programs would be jeopardized. I could go through a litany of the submissions made during those hearings, various groups who came forward and said: "We cannot operate properly. We could not effectively continue with our programs, as conceived, as a result of Bill 120. We will be seriously jeopardized." The minister knows this. In fact, the government has admitted that what's at work here is an effort to delink services from housing.

Rather than say that upfront, as I've suggested in the past that the minister do, repeatedly throughout these hearings, rather than tell the people who operate these programs and all these organizations out there who are seriously threatened by Bill 120 that you intend to move in this direction and that you will put resources into play for those groups and programs to continue, that they have an opportunity to go through a transitional period in which to properly position themselves and prepare themselves for what amounts to a delinking of services, rather than do that, which I suggest would require that additional resources be expended by the government, as it's probably a more expensive alternative, rather than do that: "Let these groups die a slow death. Don't tell them what we're doing." That's what really irritates me, at the end of the day.

Hon Ms Gigantes: What a shameful statement.

Mr Cordiano: It is not a shameful statement. It is a truthful statement and one which I would say the minister should have the decency of putting forward with respect to the real intentions of this government.

I say that because in committee we approved an amendment I put forward extending the exemption period to 18 months from six months, and the government, once the legislation was brought back to committee of the whole, reversed that amendment. What is the real intention of the government, if not to dismantle these programs, when repeatedly we heard many submissions and many groups that came forward to say, "We could not live with the six-month exemption"?

The facts speak for themselves. We heard from many groups, such as those involved in rehabilitating alcoholics and many others right across the spectrum, who said that this was not a workable situation for them, that the Landlord and Tenant Act would preclude them from doing the effective work which they had done to this point. I'd say that most of these groups have been doing the exceptional kind of work in our communities that will continue to be necessary.

What alternative does the government provide for this? The minister fails to answer that question, and so did the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services. There are overlapping services and programs here.

I would say once again to the government that this is the silent agenda. This is what's at work. Of course the government is very used to this. The Premier is rarely in the House these days. He's out making announcements. He's conducting the silent election campaign, well in advance of the real campaign. In an effort to get himself re-elected, he's out there doing the kind of campaigning which is appropriate to do in an election campaign but certainly inappropriate to conduct prior to an election campaign in as partisan a way as this Premier is conducting himself.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Heaven forbid that the Premier meet with the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Cordiano: It is a silent campaign. If you have any real guts, get on with the real campaign, if that's how you want to conduct the business of this Legislature.

The province of Ontario is very ready for an election campaign, very much so; the timing couldn't be better. Yet the government wants to continue with this agenda, where all the announcements are made outside of this House: expansive, expensive programs. The Premier is incredible these days. The amount of money he's announcing in programs and new construction out there is just bewildering. We should have a tote board outside of Queen's Park tallying how much the Premier has spent not only of this government's fiscal year, going into 1994-95, but extending well beyond the mandate of this government, potentially into another government's mandate. That is just amazing.

Getting back to the real point, of Bill 120 and the failure of this government to protect those most vulnerable citizens, we put forward amendments to suggest positive change, and the minister, as I said earlier, reversed what we tried to do to make Bill 120 work.

To recap some of those areas very quickly, as time is running out, Dr Ernie Lightman in his recommendations supported a fast-track eviction process, and the minister to this date has failed to explain how we overcome the problem of evicting someone when they put other tenants who live in congregate living situations in serious jeopardy of their lives. We've heard from tenants who've said they could not live with those circumstances. We heard this repeatedly throughout the hearings.

There are other matters, for instance the 24-hour rule, which is part of the Landlord and Tenant Act, requiring that now, before someone who is a care giver in a care home enters the room of a tenant, there is a 24-hour notice provision.

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, that's wrong.

Mr Cordiano: That is not wrong, I say to the minister.

Additionally, there are problems around eviction for non-payment of care charges, which is also not possible under this bill. Someone could refuse to pay for those care charges --

Hon Ms Gigantes: Yes, that's called delinking.

Mr Cordiano: Well, that's called a problem under this legislation. That causes enormous problems for the operators of those care homes, and you simply choose to ignore those problems.

As has been suggested by the minister, she may see fit to bring care charges under the Rent Control Act. We are concerned with doing it with that initiative, because the government has not explained how it would monitor those care charges, and what understanding they have of the care charges in the Ministry of Housing as opposed to another ministry more appropriate to handle those kinds of questions.

1540

I need to move on, as time runs out, and deal with the other half, at the end of Bill 120, the legislation around accessory apartments. This is the biggest failing of the government. We have extreme concerns around the safety of accessory apartments, basement apartments, that currently exist across the province.

Those basement apartments will become legal after Bill 120 is passed. Not all of those basement apartments will be safe places to live. That's very clear, and the minister has failed to provide answers around how we can ensure that tenants living in those basement apartments will have safe places to live in after Bill 120 is passed. She suggests that amendments made to the fire code, amendments made to ensure that safety is a requirement, will alone ensure that these units will be safe.

That's not good enough. We have put forward amendments requiring that registration of all units is mandatory and that inspections of all units be made by municipalities. We have allowed for cost recovery of those inspections, and we've suggested that inspections also be made to have necessary approvals to qualify for insurance.

The government has failed to see the importance of this repeatedly. The leader of the Liberal Party, Lyn McLeod, has put forward this view in this House, asking the minister when she would take action to ensure that these units would become safe, to ensure that the necessary inspections are conducted. I put this forward as a hypothetical situation, but I think I could find a very real example for the minister: There are units out there that cosmetically are very attractive, and perhaps the tenants living there currently are very satisfied with their unit because it has all the necessary accoutrements and is cosmetically a pleasant place to live. That unit could be unsafe according to the requirements of the building code and the safety code, and yet to the untrained eye, the tenant living in that unit would not know the difference.

The minister is suggesting that after the amendments to the fire code, this tenant will become overnight, instantly, thank you very much, very informed and up to speed with what's in the fire code. I find that startling, that she would rely on these tenants becoming informed due to the mere fact that she's making amendments to the fire code. I cannot believe this is what the minister is going to rely on to ensure that safety is brought about. She can't say to me that she will depend on everyone who knows their unit is substandard, either a landlord or tenant, going out and making the necessary renovations to bring those units up to the standard necessary to meet fire, safety code and building code requirements. That simply isn't going to happen.

We've heard from fire chiefs, who have suggested it will take anywhere from between $5,000 and $10,000 to upgrade the units that currently exist that are below standard. Even if landlords were knowledgeable about the amendments to the fire code, what incentive would they have to go out and spend that additional money to ensure that their unit was safe, when they already spent thousands of dollars to make this unit cosmetically attractive? In their mind and in the mind of the tenant living in that unit, it would be considered an acceptable place to live. The question of safety is left to the judgement of the individual living in the unit and/or a landlord being able to make the necessary renovations to make the unit safe.

I find that unbelievably unacceptable. I say to the minister, think hard on that prospect. At the end of the day, and I asked the minister this in committee, how much money would the government spend to educate the public about those changes in the fire code? You're going to have to spend a lot of money to educate everyone involved. To this date I have no satisfactory answers even around that question. That is the biggest failing on the part of this government with respect to accessory apartments: to leave those units completely unsafe. This government has very badly failed the people who live in those units.

Unfortunately, this is an omnibus piece of legislation, which makes it awfully difficult for us to support take-it-or-leave-it propositions. There are just too many glaring faults with this legislation, too many overlooked, important aspects of the legislation which fail to live up to the necessary requirements to ensure safety, to ensure that the vulnerable citizens in our province are protected, to ensure that the rehab centres continue to operate, because they do provide a very necessary service.

This government's plan for delinking services and housing is in a shambles. At least, they're not telling us what they really intend to do. All that's left for us to conclude is that there's a silent agenda at work to undermine those very useful programs which have worked till now, have worked very well and have served many communities. I ask the government and the minister once again, why do you want to destroy and dismantle this entire sector just because it justifies your own ideological directions and nothing more? It's been proven to you over and over again that you are failing, in this area, miserably.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the few minutes remaining I want to comment on this bill, particularly on the aspect of the retroactive legalization of basement apartments.

It's a principle of English common law that you don't take away people's property without proper compensation. The people who have lived in areas where they have been paying single-family rates or semi-detached rates to their councils over all the years have lived in a community where the density was one that was proposed by the elected representatives of their area, who are accountable to the public.

In one fell swoop of the pen, this NDP government is about to steal that value from those people, steal the most important investment people make in their lifetime. Unfortunately, over the period of time when real estate was very expensive, people had to resort to alternative accommodations, to basement apartments. People who owned the houses had to do that in order to retain their homes. But to attempt to do this in one fell swoop, in my view, is the most undemocratic, the most machiavellian approach that any government in the history of probably parliamentary democracy has ever resorted to.

1550

At the end of the day, if people vote you people out of office, it will be for a number of things, but this will be one of the hallmarks of it.

There are people who in my community say to me: "Mr Callahan, what happens? Does our council not have the ability to maintain the density and integrity of our neighbourhood?" I have to say to them no, because the New Democratic Party they elected -- they gave them a massive majority to allow them to do two things: first of all, to shut us up by bringing in time-allocation motions; not even having the courtesy and the dignity to allow people to speak and to represent the people they're elected by in this Parliament and, on the other side of the coin, to turn around and say to people who relied upon the fact that their residential neighbourhood was a residential neighbourhood, paid the price for that, paid the mortgage on it, paid the taxes -- and this government, in an effort to try and be all things to all people, are in fact going to take it away with the stroke of a pen.

I say, shame on this government. You're not doing anything for those people who are relying on that most invaluable investment they make; you're now devaluing it.

Finally, to the poor souls who perhaps are required to have those accommodations, as my colleague has said, you've not done one thing to protect those people. You would not provide for a registry so that these people could be identified, so that landlords could be required to upgrade these facilities to make certain they're safe.

If you think the Mississauga fire, as tragic as it was, is going to be eliminated by this machiavellian piece of legislation, Minister, you're absolutely wrong. All you're doing is giving these people the belief that they now have some sort of safety. Well, they don't; that's a fact. You could have dealt with this issue perhaps before those tragedies took place. The one piece --

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Sell your law practice; you are a failure.

Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation seems to find this all very cumbersome. I'm sorry, Minister; that's why you get the big car and the money. Maybe you'll listen. You cut us off in terms of parliamentary time to debate, so you can at least sit there and listen.

Finally, these people are not going to get one benefit from this act, not one benefit. They will be as at risk as they are now. They in fact perhaps will be at greater risk, because when people feel that democracy no longer serves their needs, and elected representatives no longer serve their needs because they've had the right taken away from them by a higher and senior government, they may very well decide to treat these people as anathema. You've done nothing for these people whatsoever, I have to tell you.

Finally, this in fact is a day that will go down in history as a time when the New Democratic Party government, with its giant majority, has said to the elected representatives of communities all over this province, "You no longer have the power, you no longer have the right to plan your communities the way you wish and to be accountable to the people who vote you into office because we, the senior Legislature at Queen's Park, have said so."

We saw what happened in eastern Europe. These types of institutions disappeared. I tell you that the New Democratic Party government is going to disappear very soon because of the machiavellian things you've done, supposedly in the interests of the democracy of this country. I'll tell you one thing, when the book is written on your government, it will probably change the entire name of the New Democratic Party. Just as the Conservatives as they go around this province gearing up for an election never mention once in any of their literature that they're Conservatives because they perhaps are afraid of that, you people when you campaign, be it for provincial Parliament, federal Parliament or municipal parliament, won't want to be New Democrats.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for the official opposition. Further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would like to say that the member for Mississauga South has put in many of the remarks that I would like to put, but in my brief period of time I would say that if the government does not choose to listen to the member for Mississauga South, myself, or any of the members on this side of the House, would the government listen to the Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living, an association that serves people with developmental disabilities and provides residential programs for 600 people? The Metropolitan Toronto Association for Community Living says that Bill 120 will cause harm to their programs.

Will they listen to the Ontario Association of Non-profit Homes and Services for Seniors? I quote from one of their recent publications: "Bill 120 ignores seniors' special care needs."

Will the government listen to the Scarborough General Hospital, that hospital which has a program serving severely mentally ill people? They say that the eviction process imposed under Bill 120 associated with the Landlord and Tenant Act will take at least six to eight weeks -- my view is it will take much longer than that -- that during this period of time, residents housed in the program with the Scarborough General Hospital will be subject to verbal and physical abuse during that period of time and it'll cause harm to their program.

Will the government listen to Stanley Knowles, speaking on behalf of Rideau Place in Ottawa, who pleads with the Premier of the province of Ontario not to proceed with Bill 120?

Will the members and the minister listen to the spokespeople on behalf of Massey Centre, providing a service for unwed young mothers who plead and say that security is so essential in their program and that this bill, Bill 120, will remove the security procedures which are so important to their program?

Will they listen to the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs, having over 100 agencies providing accommodation and rehabilitation and recovery programs, when it says that Bill 120 will cause it problems and will harm its programs?

Will they listen to the Society of St Vincent de Paul, which provides 11 homes for men and women recovering from alcohol addiction; will they listen to the Anglican Houses providing accommodation for the homeless and for those with multiple disabilities; will they listen to Ecuhome, represented by seven or eight different churches here in the Metropolitan region, providing some 50 homes for people who are hard to house, when these organizations, and I've only picked out a few, say that this Bill 120 will cause irreparable damage and harm to their programs?

On the other half of the bill, if the government won't listen to the member for Mississauga South and myself and the other members of our caucus, will it listen to the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs when the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs tells us and tells this government that the fire chiefs of Ontario need access to these units to ensure that they are safe?

Many of these units, the basement apartments, the accessory apartments that are made legal through this bill, have never been inspected. This bill will not provide that access to have these apartments inspected to make sure that they're safe. Yes, this bill will make these units legal but it will not make them safe. The minister herself says this bill speaks to legality; it does not speak to safety. That, I have to say, is the wrong approach. We should be concerned about the safety of basement apartments, about the safety of accessory apartments.

Will the minister listen to the Mississauga fire chief, to the fire chief from North York, the fire chief from the city of Ottawa, Scarborough, many municipalities, when those fire chiefs say they need the right of access to these apartments to make sure they're safe and this bill will not provide it?

I've asked the fire chief in East York, "When you knock on the door and try to get access to one of these units to go in and do an inspection, to make sure that that basement apartment is safe, what luck do you have?" I'm told, and I'm told that this is representative of other municipalities, that about 30% of the time they get in; 70% of the time they do not get in to do an inspection. That is not sufficient. That will not provide safety. In the words of the fire chief of the city of Mississauga, if they can't get in and they can't inspect and ensure that there's safety, there will simply be more fires and there will be more tragedies, and I think that's wrong.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for the Progressive Conservative Party. Further debate?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): This for me and the minister and my government is a very proud day. For us, it brings to completion two very important pieces of legislation that were combined in an omnibus bill to form Bill 120.

1600

The member for Don Mills talks about not listening. Well, there's a lot of not listening going on over there in the opposition. Was the opposition not listening in 1989 when the then Liberal government gave municipalities the authority to provide for zoning and other requirements with respect to basement apartments? Were these municipalities and members of the opposition not listening to people like Doug Hum, Barb Jamison, Ray Catrion and Jackie Bonsell from Scarborough when they came forward time after time to Scarborough council and deputed till 3 o'clock in the morning to be treated rudely by municipal officials? They didn't want to listen either.

The Ontario fire marshal's office when it deputed in front of the committee talked about how many people have refused entry by the fire marshal or the fire department to their homes.

Interjection.

Mr Owens: The number was two. The member for Mississauga South somewhere --

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Still not listening.

Mr Owens: -- is still not listening. The member for Mississauga South and the member for Brampton, who's not here at this point and I wish he was, because what these people have done essentially, and I've said this to the member for Mississauga South -- what she's done is she's played politics with people's lives. She is saying this bill, in its form, has essentially killed people who have been living in basement apartments.

I say to the member for Mississauga South, and I say to the mayor of Mississauga, back in 1989, when you were given the authority to respond with respect to basement apartments, you did not do it. You did not listen to the housing groups that came forward in your riding. You did not listen to the housing advocates in your area in any way, shape or form.

On the issue of municipal powers and search and seizure, I would like to ask the member for Mississauga South, who puts her hand over her heart and talks about rights and freedoms and all the rest of that stuff, if there's any person in Mississauga who would freely open their door or allow somebody to kick the door in or have the unfettered right of entry, and I would say to the member for Mississauga South that no one in their right mind would allow unfettered access to any person in authority.

People in Ontario, people like my parents, fought for the democratic right to say who enters their premises or not. This government has worked hard to provide for a piece of legislation that allows a search warrant to be obtained by its officials, by --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Owens: I would stop the clock.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre has the floor.

Mr Owens: I would suggest to the member that the unfettered right of entry has absolutely nothing to do with whether the grass is cut, absolutely nothing to do with whether somebody has a couch on their lawn or whether or not the windows get washed. I think in this society we all understand that people have a right to privacy and they have a right to ask questions.

The issue of Stanley Knowles was raised by the member for Don Mills and the issue with respect to senior care needs. The word that was missing during the presentation by the providers was that simple word called "consent."

I would ask the member for Don Mills --

Interjection.

Mr Owens: -- and the member for Mississauga South, if she could ever close her mouth long enough to listen to what I'm saying, if she would go back to that apartment building that she talks about where Stanley Knowles resides and ask the people. What if people become incontinent? What if people become disoriented? What if this, what if that? How quickly will those people be asked to vacate the premises?

In closing, the member for Mississauga South also forgets the fine upstanding Tory tradition that now lives on in Parkdale. The kinds of slum houses, the kinds of problems that ex-psychiatric patients have to put up with, the kinds of things that are the responsibility of the Tories I lay solely and squarely at your feet, I say to the member for Mississauga South. You closed Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. You did not put the services into place. You did not do a thing to raise a finger to lift these people out of poverty and to maintain what little dignity they are able to maintain after years within Queen Street psychiatric hospital.

We didn't need Ernie Lightman to talk about the kinds of problems that went on in the boarding houses. We know. We needed Ernie Lightman to document in one single volume the kinds of problems that are going on. I think the member should take the opportunity to read the book by Pat Capponi -- I say this once more -- Upstairs in the Crazy House. I think you'll find it instructive.

Hon Ms Gigantes: It is with a great sense of satisfaction that I rise to wrap up this debate. What we've heard from the members of the opposition really gives you an outline of how it's gone on this residents' rights bill.

I'd like to give credit and give thanks to Dr Ernie Lightman, who wrote the report on the lives of people who live in care homes in Ontario, documenting the great strains and, in some cases, abuses under which they have to live. He also called for the recognition of apartments in houses and measures by this government to clarify the situation under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act for residents of apartments in houses.

Dr Lightman and indeed many groups that have worked on behalf of this legislation over many years can feel some sense of pride today that the work they have done has borne fruit, that people who live in apartments in houses need no longer fear that they will be evicted if they call forth their rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act.

That is the first step to safety. There are 100,000 people who live in apartments in houses which are illegal simply because of the zoning. Until we change that situation, which is what this bill will do, nothing about their health and safety can or will be addressed, no matter what the opposition benches are telling us.

It was interesting today. From the Conservatives we had a clearly negative approach to both parts of the bill, both the care homes section and the apartments in houses. From the member for Mississauga South, the Conservative Housing critic, we had, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." If she hasn't noticed how broke it is, she'd better get a new prescription for her glasses.

From the Liberals we heard from their Housing critic, the member for Lawrence, that he felt he and his colleagues were in a very unfortunate position. It's the unfortunate position the Liberal Party finds itself in all too often when it tries to have it both ways.

Until we can clarify the legal situation of people who live in apartments in houses and who live in care homes and say that they, as residents in homes where they live permanently, have the same rights to protection, the same rights of tenure and security under the Landlord and Tenant Act and the same rights to make sure that they don't suffer unwarranted rent increases and that they can use pieces of the legislation to address maintenance problems and so on, until they have those same rights other tenants have, they are in a very vulnerable situation, which has been well known in Ontario for many a year. The fact that previous governments were unwilling to act has meant that the problem has built and built.

To all those people who are afraid of what this legislation will mean because of unfamiliarity with the Landlord and Tenant Act and the Rent Control Act, let me offer assistance from the Ministry of Housing in making sure that the programs it is running and the situations landlords and tenants enter into are situations and programs we would like to see develop and improve under the residents' rights bill. We will do all that we can to assist.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for third reading debate of Bill 120.

Ms Gigantes has moved third reading of Bill 120. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members: a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1610 to 1615.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Could all members please take their seats.

We are now dealing with third reading of Bill 120. All those in favour of third reading of Bill 120 will rise one at a time to be recognized by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Bill 120 will rise one at a time and be recognized by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Callahan, Chiarelli, Conway, Cordiano, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Harnick, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Morin, Murphy, North, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 39. I declare the motion carried.

I declare that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder, since we actually have ministers here at this point, if I could have unanimous consent to move back to question period.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? No.

House in committee of the whole.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Consideration of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We will now be looking for questions, comments or amendments, and if there are amendments, to which sections.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): As small business advocate for our party, I have a number of amendments that I'd like to put forward this afternoon.

We wish to amend section 1 of the bill by adding a subsection; an amendment to subsection 1(5) of the bill; subsection 1(8) of the bill; another for subsection 1(8) of the bill; subsection 1(10) of the bill; a new section which we call section 1.1 of the bill; an amendment to section 2 of the bill; an amendment to subsection 3(1) of the bill; an amendment to subsection 3(2) of the bill; an amendment to subsection 3(3) of the bill; an amendment to section 4 of the bill; an amendment to subsection 5(6) of the bill; section 7 of the bill; section 13 of the bill; subsection 38(3) of the bill; and subsections 39(5) and (6) of the bill.

That concludes our amendments, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair: Will there be any other amendments put forward to this bill? Do you have any amendments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): No.

The First Deputy Chair: We will deal with section 1 of the bill first.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I just wondered if the member for Wellington might tell us how many of his amendments he expects to be ruled in order.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. We will proceed with the member for Wellington. Your amendments to section 1, please.

Mr Arnott: I move that section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following subsection:

"(1.1) The definition of 'employer' in subsection 1(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"'employer' means a person or a government, including the government of a province, a territory or Canada, who pays remuneration to an employee, but does not include a small employer."

I believe this amendment is in order. We have introduced a number of amendments to this bill this afternoon which we feel are in order. Their effect is entirely consistent with the commonsense agenda we introduced last week.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Where's my flag?

Mr Arnott: He doesn't have his flag, but this indeed is consistent with what we're saying. We're saying that small businesses, those with a payroll of less than $400,000 annually, ought to be exempt from paying the employer health tax. We've seen tacit recognition by the Treasurer in his budget a couple of weeks ago, indicating that that would help small business create jobs. At least they're giving a tax holiday for small business for one year. I believe that is a rather direct admission that small business needs exemption from the payroll taxes, specifically from the employer health tax.

What we intend to do is to endeavour to put this forward in a positive, constructive way for the government to give consideration to it. We believe this move would assist small business directly and immediately, will help the sector that is really creating about 80% of the jobs in this province.

Mr Mahoney: I want to express the concern that how we define "small business" in relationship to the EHT is critical here. What Bill 110 attempts to do is to bring in the people who were left out when the employer health tax was initially put in place. They are people such as lawyers or doctors or consultants, who generally were left out of the legislation and were exempt. This bill will bring them in.

What the NDP has done in its legislation is to say that anybody who earns less than $40,000 a year will be exempt from this bill. What this amendment clearly does is to slightly increase the stakes. It says that anyone who earns less than $400,000 a year, and they use the term "Ontario remuneration for the year that does not exceed $400,000," will be exempt.

As a result, what we're disputing here is whether we're talking about small business in the strict sense of small business being defined by the province as someone with fewer than 100 employees; officially, that's been the level that's been recognized. Or are we talking about what amounts to, in essence, a tax shelter for someone earning $400,000?

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me. I believe you may be speaking to amendment 1(5). We're actually dealing with subsection (1.1).

Mr Mahoney: I understand that. It's all related, Madam Chair; that's the point. It's all related. What they're doing in the first one is changing the definition of "employer," but the purpose in doing it is then followed up by the $400,000 exemption.

We took a position on this bill that this is the wrong time for the government to be expanding its tax base and that we were opposed generally to the bill as it stood, with the exception of the changes under the Workers' Compensation Act, which we thought made some sense.

What the Tories are attempting to do is put this in line with their document that was put forward -- I think it was called the American Revolution -- that was lacking in common sense. They would now in essence say to people in Ontario, "If your payroll is under $400,000" -- this is creating, obviously, two tiers and two levels. We don't support the bill, but this amendment would make it even worse.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I too want to make a couple of comments regarding the amendment put forward by the member for Wellington and say that we will not be supporting this amendment. Yes, we all recognize the value small business plays in the province in terms of creating jobs, and that was recognized in the most recent budget, but we also understand that there is some obligation for everyone to pay their share of taxes, particularly the employer health tax.

1630

The First Deputy Chair: Before we go further, I would like to ask for agreement that the member can speak from this seat. Would this be agreeable? Agreed.

Mr Sutherland: If I may, could I also ask permission for staff to come on the floor?

The First Deputy Chair: Do I have permission for staff to come to the floor? Agreed. Further comments?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): In terms of a comment but also perhaps in terms of a question, perhaps to the parliamentary assistant -- I see I have his attention -- I was curious about the fact that in the 1994 budget just released by the Minister of Finance, there was a specific section entitled "Cutting Taxes to Create Jobs." That section pertained primarily to the new direction in the 1994 budget that the employer health tax would not be paid on new jobs, jobs created above and beyond those in place at present, or new payroll and new jobs.

The government clearly recognized that the elimination of the employer health tax is going to create jobs in the province of Ontario. As a matter of fact, your very own document budget touts the fact that 12,000 jobs will be created in Ontario as a result of eliminating the employer health tax in those circumstances. The cost I think you estimated at some $200 million, but 12,000 jobs were going to be created.

My question to the parliamentary assistant is, if you recognized in the 1994 budget that eliminating the employer health tax under certain circumstances for new jobs or new payrolls would create those 12,000 jobs, what is different? Why have you not recognized that in this bill, where you're actually going counter to that theory and applying more employer health tax in more situations? If I use an extension of your logic in the 1994 budget, you would then actually be reducing jobs.

Where is the consistency? On the one hand, you're eliminating the tax to create jobs. On the other hand, you're introducing the employer health tax, which presumably will cut jobs. I'm very curious about why you've taken two entirely different approaches.

Mr Sutherland: To respond to the member for Don Mills, I think we need to understand a couple of things. First of all, if we look at the legislation we're dealing with, what we're doing is trying to make the application of the employer health tax fairer, because self-employed individuals, before this legislation is brought forward, do not have to pay the employer health tax. The purpose of what we're doing here is to say that for those who are self-employed and earn more than $40,000, they will pay the health tax.

The member for Don Mills asked, is this inconsistent with what we've done in the 1994 budget regarding the incentive for small businesses who are hiring new employees? I would say to him, no, it's not. You have to understand that if you were self-employed, you do not qualify for this new incentive as other businesses do, so you're talking in some respects about two different portions of taxes here.

Mr Arnott: In response to the member for Mississauga West, who raised a few questions about the intent of this amendment and the package of amendments we're putting forward this afternoon, we in the Conservative caucus would not suggest that people shouldn't be asked to pay for a portion of their health care cost.

Mr Elston: On the contrary: user fees.

Mr Arnott: No, as a matter of fact, we have what we call a fair share health care levy, and that would kick in for anyone who has an income of more than $50,000 a year and would be a direct percentage of their income which they would pay on their income tax form annually. It's a graduated rate. It starts at $50,000. If you earn less than $50,000, you don't pay a penny in that fair share health care levy. If, say, you make $150,000, you pay about 2% of your income, which is about $3,000.

We don't fundamentally reject the notion that people can't pay for a portion of their health care cost, but we're just saying that this employer health tax -- and I'm not surprised the Liberals are a little irritated by our amendment, because it was their tax initially and it has been collected now for a number of years. At the time, they certainly argued that the businesses could withstand this new tax. But clearly, over the last number of years, it has been demonstrated that it is not conducive to job creation.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Madam Chair: I have just spoken to the official opposition House leader and the whip for the government. Because all our amendments are of a similar nature, there's been agreement that the forced division on these amendments will be deferred until the end of the day at 5:45, just before the vote. I would like to ask for unanimous consent that this be done.

The First Deputy Chair: You want to have a division on each of these amendments?

Mr Eves: That's correct. It will probably be the same vote, but it will all happen at once.

The First Deputy Chair: Is there agreement? Agreed.

Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to section 1 of the bill, subsection (1.1). Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those in opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

As agreed, this vote will be stacked to the end of all the amendments, or 5:45.

Amendments? I believe we have one to subsection 1(5).

Mr Arnott: I move that the definition of "small employer" in subsection 1(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(5) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"'small employer,' in respect of a year, means an employer who pays total Ontario remuneration for the year that does not exceed $400,000."

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Arnott, would you like to make some comments?

Mr Arnott: In the interest of expediency, I think we addressed the issues we want to raise in the earlier debate.

Mr Sutherland: Let me make just one additional comment to what the member for Wellington is trying to do here. His belief is that with what this amendment is proposing, by reducing this, it will automatically increase employment among small business people. There are a lot of assumptions in that, that they will automatically increase their number of employees. Compared to what we've done in the 1994 budget, where the incentive is specifically there for them to increase employment, we do a better job of targeting that incentive compared to what the member for Wellington is proposing here.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 1(5) of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be accordingly stacked until later.

Further amendments?

Mr Arnott: This is subsection 1(8) of the bill.

I move that the definitions of "fiscal year," "net self-employment income," "self-employed individual" and "self-employment income" in subsection 1(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(8) of the bill, be struck out.

1640

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Madam Chair: As I understand it, the proper way to eliminate sections is to vote against them during clause-by-clause voting rather than moving that they be struck out. I think, as a result, that the amendments just announced are obviously out of order.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you to the member for Bruce. He is correct if we are dealing with the whole section. This particular amendment deals with only part of the section, so we will have to deal with it.

Mr Arnott has moved that subsection 1(8) of the bill be amended. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The vote will be accordingly stacked.

Further amendments?

Mr Arnott: I wish to move a further amendment to subsection 1(8).

I move that the definition of "taxpayer" in subsection 1(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(8) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"'Taxpayer' means a person who is an employer, whether or not that person is liable to pay tax under this act."

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 1(8) of the bill, subsection 1(1) of the act. Dispense?

Mr Elston: No. I want to hear this read again. I can't hear it, Madam Chair. I'm sorry.

The First Deputy Chair: "I move that the definition of 'taxpayer' in section 1(1) of the act, as set out in subsection 1(8) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"'Taxpayer' means a person who is an employer, whether or not that person is liable to pay tax under this act."

Mr Arnott, would you have any comments or questions regarding this amendment? No.

Mr Elston: I think maybe we could have just a brief explanation of why that is necessary. My friend, I know, probably does want to save us a little bit of time, but I think that particular winding through the legislation might be assisted by a brief discussion of its merits.

Mr Arnott: Just by way of response to the member for Bruce, and I hope this is satisfactory, this in my understanding is required in the totality of our amendments to reflect the viewpoint that we've put forward, that businesses with payrolls of under $400,000 ought to be exempt from the employer health tax.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments to Mr Arnott? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 1(8) of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be stacked.

Further amendments?

Mr Arnott: I move that subsection 1(10) of the bill be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Seeing that this is a subsection, it is in order. Mr Arnott has moved that subsection 1(10) of the bill be struck out. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This will be voted on accordingly later.

Further amendments?

Mr Arnott: My next amendment would create a new section, section 1.1 of the bill. The amendment is as follows:

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

"1.1 A small employer is exempt from this act."

Mr David Johnson: By way of a question, again, to the parliamentary assistant: Since this amendment is talking about eliminating small, self-employed individuals, I'd just like to have on record, if it's possible, since this tax has actually been collected, as I understand it, since January 1993 -- we've had almost a year and a half in terms of collecting this tax. Perhaps you could inform me (a) if I'm right on that, and (b) how much tax was collected during the course of the last year pertaining to this issue, the extension of the employer health tax to self-employed people.

I understand that the forecast in the first instance was that there would be about $45 million worth of revenue. If you could tell me if I'm correct in that and how much revenue was actually collected -- and the cost. To go against that, what is the cost of the administration to collect the tax? How many people are we talking about that are involved specifically in collecting this tax so we can compare the number of people to collect this tax, the cost of collecting this tax, versus the actual revenue it brought in?

One of the reasons I ask this is that in the first instance when the employer health tax was contemplated -- I wasn't here at the time, but my understanding is that one of the parties in opposition at that point, the NDP, felt this tax would not bring in enough. Indeed, I think it was the staff recommendation at that time too, I've been informed, that the cost of collecting and monitoring this tax would outweigh -- perhaps not in the actual dollars, but when you consider that, yes, more revenue would be collected than the cost but not significantly enough that it simply wouldn't be worthwhile. I wonder if you could speak on the year's experience in that regard.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say that the amount of tax we're talking about that would be collected from small employers is about $400 million. Unfortunately, I can't give you an estimate of what the actual cost of collection and administration would be.

Mr David Johnson: That's more than I was led to believe, when you say the amount to be collected is about $400 million. I may have been informed incorrectly, but the information I had was that it was about one tenth of that. I'm simply talking about the employer health tax pertaining to self-employed people, by itself; not just all small businesses, but self-employed people.

Have you had a year of experience in that regard? Have you collected this for about a year and, if so, exactly how much money during that year have you collected?

I'm a little bit puzzled that you wouldn't have any estimate in terms of the cost of collecting that tax because I would assume when a government is looking at implementing a tax, one of the things they would know is how much it's going to cost to collect the tax. Surely, somewhere there must be an estimate in terms of how many people to collect it and what the cost would be to collect the tax.

1650

Mr Sutherland: Let me just clarify: The $400 million is the amount it would be from a small employer. I gave the member for Don Mills that figure because his amendment refers to a small employer, not just a self-employed individual. He is correct in his figures about self-employed individuals. The revenue collected there would be, I'm informed, about $35 million, $40 million, somewhere in that range.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments with regard to this amendment? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to section 1.1 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be stacked until later.

We have now completed section 1 of the bill and we are about to deal with section 2.

Mr Arnott: I have one amendment to section 2.

I move that section 2 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Calculation of tax

"(2.1) The amount of the tax payable by an employer for a year is an amount equal to the product of the total Ontario remuneration paid by the employer during the year multiplied by a rate of 1.95 per cent."

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Arnott, would you have any comments with regard to your motion?

Mr Arnott: It's again consistent with the intent of what we're trying to do this afternoon. It changes the formula for calculating the tax.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say that I understand the intent of why this amendment is moved in conjunction with all the other amendments in terms of a small employer. Let me just say, though, that if none of the other amendments carried and this one did, then you'd have a greater problem, of course, because you'd be removing the graduated portion of the employers health tax, and that would subsequently mean the small employers would be paying the same as the larger employers.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments to this amendment? If not, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to section 2 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be stacked.

Now we will move to section 3 of the bill.

Mr Arnott: I have three amendments to section 3. The first one is subsection 3(1) of the bill.

I move that subsection 3(1) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"3(1) Subsection 3(1) of the act is amended by striking out 'Treasurer' in the second line and substituting 'minister.'"

The First Deputy Chair: Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 3(1) of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote will be stacked until later.

Any further questions, comments or amendments to section 3?

Mr Arnott: My amendment to subsection 3(2) of the bill is as follows:

I move that subsection 3(2) of the act, as set out in subsection 3(2) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"Exception

"(2) An employer is not required to pay instalments on account of the tax payable for a year as an employer under this act if the total Ontario remuneration for the year was paid or will be paid by the employer during one month in the year."

The First Deputy Chair: Any comments or questions with regard to this amendment? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 3(2) of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will also be stacked.

Any further amendments to section 3?

Mr Arnott: I move that subsections 3(3), (5), (6), (7) and (8) of the act, as set out in subsection 3(3) of the bill, be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions or comments with regard to this motion? Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote also will be stacked.

We will now turn to section 4 of the bill. Any questions, comments or amendments?

Mr Arnott: We have no amendments to this section of the bill. The member for Bruce will probably correct me if I'm mistaken, but we intend to vote against this section of the bill.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions, comments or amendments to section 4? If there are no questions, comments or amendments, we can deal with section 4. Shall section 4 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare that section carried.

Now we can deal with section 5 of the bill. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 5?

Mr Arnott: I have an amendment to subsection 5(6) of the bill.

I move that subsections 5(8), (9) and (10) of the act, as set out in subsection 5(6) of the bill, be struck out.

The First Deputy Chair: Any questions or comments on this motion? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsections 5(8), (9) and (10) of the act. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote also will be stacked.

Any questions, comments or amendments to section 6 of the bill? Seeing none, shall section 6 carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

1700

Interjections.

The First Deputy Chair: All those in favour, please say "aye."

Mr Elston: No, no. You can't do that. It's been called before.

On a point of order, Madam Chair: You have called for the vote. It has been registered. A decision was made. Five members stood in their places. This now has to be stacked with the rest of them, Madam Chair, unless something else is to be made as an arrangement. I'm sorry, but you cannot change the ruling on your own accord, at least in my view.

The First Deputy Chair: The vote on this section will be stacked.

Now we will deal with section 7 of the bill. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 7?

Mr Arnott: I move that section 7 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"7(1) Subsection 7(3) of the act is amended by striking out 'compounded monthly' in the second line and substituting 'compounded daily'.

"(2) Subsection 7(5) of the act is repealed."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any comments with regard to this motion? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to section 7 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

This vote also will be stacked.

Now we will deal with further sections 8 through 12. Is there agreement that we can deal with 8 through 12? Agreed.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments to sections 8 through 12? Seeing none, shall sections 8 through 12 carry? Carried.

We will now deal with section 13 of the bill. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 13?

Mr Arnott: I move that section 13 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"13. Subsection 12(1) of the act is repealed and the following substituted:

"Records and books of account

"(1) Every employer with a permanent establishment in Ontario shall keep records and books of account in Ontario or at such other place as may be approved by the minister."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments with regard to this motion? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to section 13 of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will be stacked.

Any questions, comments or amendments on sections 14 through 37?

Mr Elston: Just as a matter of interest, there have been and I guess there always will continue to be some complaints, particularly from small business people, in relation to audits by the Ministry of Revenue in many, many areas. The EHT, I suspect, is probably no different. Could the parliamentary assistant describe for me what is seen to be a reasonable hour and time, and whether steps have been taken by the department to ensure that any audit that is being conducted is done so a small business person, who oftentimes is a sole proprietor or may even be a part-time proprietor of their own business, is not inconvenienced to the point where they are taken away from actually operating their premises and their stores? I know we have a person who has practical experience here, but the inconvenience is probably one of the largest complaints we receive, particularly to the one- or two-person operation which has to deal with auditors. Perhaps you can tell us how you have modernized the process.

Mr Sutherland: I am pleased to respond to the member for Bruce. The normal procedure is to try and set up an appointment during normal working hours. However, if that is inconvenient to the small business person, they try and reach a mutually agreeable time to come in and have the audit take place.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions, comments or amendments on sections 14 through 37?

Shall sections 14 through 37 carry? Carried.

We will deal now with section 38 of the bill. Are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 38?

Mr Arnott: I move that subsection 38(3) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(3) Subsection 5(1.1) of the act, as enacted by subsection 5(1) of this act, applies in respect to returns required to be filed in respect of 1993 and subsequent years."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments to this particular amendment? Seeing none, Mr Arnott has moved an amendment to subsection 38(3) of the bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed to the motion will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. This vote will also be stacked.

Moving on to section 39 of the bill, are there any questions, comments or amendments to section 39?

Mr Arnott: This is our last amendment, which would have the effect of changing the employer health tax to reflect the Common Sense Revolution.

I move that subsections 39(5) and (6) of the bill be struck out and the following substituted:

"Same

"(5) Subsection 1(9), section 2, subsections 3(1) and (3), sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16, subsection 18(1), sections 19 and 20, subsection 22(1) and sections 28, 34 and 35 shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1993.

"Same

"(6) Subsection 7(1) and section 29 shall be deemed to have come into force on January 1, 1994."

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any questions or comments to this motion?

Mr Elston: As we've come almost to an end of this discussion, it's important for us all to reflect that the amendments being proposed here are in some ways tinkering with a bill which has caused a great deal of discomfort in the small business community. While for some of us there is always an interesting --

Interjections.

Mr Elston: May I wait till they're finished speaking?

The First Deputy Chair: Order. Proceed.

Mr Elston: There is a great deal of debate in this province about the effectiveness of the employer health tax and its ability --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order. I'd like to hear the member for Bruce.

1710

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): He came to contribute, Madam Chair.

Mr Elston: Actually, perhaps the contribution could be by way of a levy to the EHT by the member for York Mills and the member for Durham West. We could do a special levy. I can make that amendment under the next section.

In any event, here's our problem: We have a circumstance in this province where the EHT was planned to replace a whole series of health administrative matters which dealt with premiums. For anybody who was in the health administration business in those days, it was a rather complex process: collecting the premiums, logging the cheques, finding out who hadn't paid, disqualifying some people, putting other people on the list, filings of form 104s and otherwise. From a health perspective it probably made good sense to deal with an employer health tax, because that alleviated the necessity of chasing people who had come into and then out of the system for health insurance coverage in the province.

Unfortunately, having chosen this method -- and I remember speaking briefly, at another time in this House, on a resolution to deal with the employer health tax -- I still really believe that we should probably check very thoroughly whether it's worthwhile continuing with this sort of levy for the purposes of health insurance. That has been underscored again by the recent indication that the government will not cover certain members of the families of non-Canadian, but resident, executives of companies in the province of Ontario.

In particular, people who come from outside Canada to serve in a company capacity in Ontario will find themselves probably not covered, or at least the earliest indication is that they won't be covered, in the province even though their salaries are subject to an EHT levy. It is for sure that the dependants of those people who also come with them will not be covered, unless the dependants happen to be born in the province.

It seems to be me to be a very unfair result indeed. In fairness, I've spoken to the Premier and the Minister of Health and they assure me that they are taking some steps to find out how they can respond more favourably to an obvious problem which was not intended. In any event, in that circumstance a company may have been forced to pay a huge amount of EHT and get no coverage at all for certain of the people who are working there. The whole idea before, of course, was that anybody who was working would be covered on the health insurance plan by being included as part of the payroll deduction equations.

From my standpoint, we really have to ask ourselves whether the tinkering we're doing here -- and in some ways it could be seen to be a little more than tinkering, since we're getting about $400 million of revenue with it -- is playing around the edges on this tax. If I can take a look at what is happening in the province, it must drive everybody crazy trying to keep up with the new missives that come out of the Ministry of Revenue.

I don't mean to take aim at the people at Revenue; they do what is required of them by the Minister of Finance and others who need the money. But we just seem to be, day after day, sending out a new missive on this, closing off this loophole, opening up another couple of loopholes because you found that the first missive didn't exactly do all the things you wanted. From my point of view, part of the simplification of our tax system could be the elimination of some of these specifically targeted taxes.

I suspect that at some stage or another there would be a Revenue employee somewhere who probably would say, "Thank God for the elimination of some of these," because then they wouldn't have to carry so many rules and regulations and binders and bills around in the backs of their cars when they go out to see the various people they see.

I think one of the more disconcerting scenes would be to see an auditor from the Ministry of Revenue come driving up to my small business and then unload 17 different kits so they could do one consolidated audit on all of my books. I might be forced to have that audit person in my place of business for weeks on end, at a time when I probably wouldn't have the margin to support that sort of activity.

In any event, we are here to try to do something with this act. We have made it clear that our preference is to look for another source of revenue; we don't have it at this stage, but at some stage I think there has to be a statement made that says that small business must receive some alleviation from part of the onerous problems that have been dealt to it by the employer health tax.

As I said earlier, if you are a small business and you do a certain level of business in the province, it doesn't matter what your profit margin is; you are caught. From my standpoint, that is an unfortunate consequence.

This being a bill from another budget, we will probably be faced with another bill from this budget, which will try and amend again the Employer Health Tax Act. I don't find that particularly helpful, in the sense that we will just get done with this one a year after the fact and probably won't get to deal with the other bill for some time. In fact, it's too bad that it hadn't been brought forward and done right now with the rest of this stuff. In fact, that's probably what was suggested by some other people.

From my standpoint, we will be playing at the edges again and there will be an exception built in to one of the sections which we have now not bothered dealing with under this Bill 110 amendment to the Employer Health Tax Act. I think that's problematic. I think it's interesting to note, too, that under the changes in the new budget some of the people who will be presumably included for the first time by this Bill 110 will be allowed to exclude part of their new payroll for this year under the auspices of this budget, so that there will be another set of directives and missives sent out. I find that unfortunate. It must be most difficult for the people to understand why all of these things happen one year after another.

In fact, the employer health tax is not that old to begin with, and here we are going to have an amendment passed presently, depending on when this thing comes back for third reading, and we will get another batch very shortly from the Minister of Finance. That type of activity, the ups and the downs and the sideways that we put these people through, has got to cease and desist. The sending of all this paper has got to stop. We have to, in my view, start being much more efficient in our own legislative scheme than we have been to this point.

If it's such an important issue, why wasn't the new payroll item thought about before? If it was so high on the priority list, why has it taken so long to bring it to this point?

These are just some of the comments that I make surrounding the sections that we have just dealt with. The fact that the amendment to 39 is actually an attempt to do something with the small business problems is at least to be commended if not commendable, because I think that there were some games being played. Obviously, it's part of the Harris plan to have his revolutionaries pick up the fife and drum and beat something to death, if not their own political ideology.

In any event, I think that the problems are much more deep-founded than the tinkering which has been proposed by my friend the member for Wellington or indeed by the revolutionaries off to my left but their right. I like the idea of doing something, but the politicizing and politicking of this event by the Tories is nothing more than a charade which ought to be dealt with summarily.

Mr Sutherland: I just wanted to add a couple of comments, not to prolong this debate too long, because the member for Bruce was almost starting to get engaged in a full debate about health care and who should be covered and who shouldn't be. Obviously, we don't want to get into that.

I do want to correct him on a couple of points. Again, I apologize if earlier I left the impression that the changes we're making in this specific bill are bringing in $400 million in extra revenue. They are only bringing in $40 million, because the specific change we're making here is to the self-employed, who are now being covered, who weren't covered before. The $400-million figure was in reference to total small business, the amount of employer health tax that's coming in there. Staff from the Ministry of Finance, not the Ministry of Revenue, assure me now that most of the material they need to go in auditing is in the laptop computer with them and makes the process a little more efficient.

1720

Let me just say, though, that as the member for Bruce pointed out, there are challenges in finding out where the revenue should come from. The Liberals haven't quite come up with an idea as to where it should. I give credit to the third party. Even though I fundamentally disagree with the Common Sense Revolution, at least they're trying to be clear as to where they stand on the issue. I believe we've been very clear in terms of we've had to put a budget document. All of us will be waiting to see whether there's clarity coming from the rest of the parties represented in this House.

Mr Arnott: I don't want to unnecessarily prolong this debate because I thought it was coming to a conclusion and I think we've made our point. The member for Bruce has chastised us for playing games or whatever, suggesting that we're tinkering with this proposal, this package of amendments. Tinkering? This package of amendments is to reduce and eliminate the payroll tax for every small business under $400,000 in payroll. Tinkering, I would give to the member for Bruce, is included in the Lyn McLeod Commitment to Jobs and Growth, this policy paper that the Liberals put out two or three weeks ago, where in fact they propose -- this is the terminology -- "Examining the establishment of a payroll tax credit for companies hiring new workers."

It's a very, very careful suggestion and it's worded very, very carefully so as not to really upset anybody. I believe what the government has done in its budget is tinkering with the employer health tax because it is suggesting that for one year the new jobs that will be created in small business won't have health tax applied. But we're talking about a fundamental, permanent reduction in the tax facing small business.

This Liberal paper also talks about payroll taxes being a direct inhibition to job creation. I just wish that the philosophy of the Liberal Party, when it had been in government, had been more consistent with what it's saying today.

Mr David Johnson: I guess I won't say anything more about the tinkering because we've all agreed that the NDP and the Liberals are tinkering with the budget numbers and the Progressive Conservatives are offering quite a change from the past.

But I am surprised that the parliamentary assistant was unaware, first of all, of how much money was being generated by this particular extension of the employer health tax. Now it appears that it's $35 million; I think that's what I've heard him say. My understanding was that $45 million was the estimate in the first instance of how much revenue would accrue to the government. If I'm reading that correctly, then there is a shortfall of about $10 million in terms of the estimate. Perhaps the parliamentary assistant would comment on that.

Further, I'm very surprised that there's no idea of the government cost, the number of people required to collect this tax. We're not only looking in terms of collecting a tax but in terms of the forms that are associated with this tax and the cost of them. We're looking at appeals that are available and the costs associated with vetting those appeals and making decisions on those appeals. We're looking at audits that are involved with this. We're looking at a broad cost associated with supervising this particular tax.

I'm surprised that the parliamentary assistant is unable to give us any indication of how much extra cost is associated with this tax. We know the burden on individuals who have to pay it, but how much cost is associated with collecting this tax so we can compare it with the $35 million?

While he's thinking about that, the audit was mentioned. I apologize that I was called out of the House for a minute and I missed section 14. But perhaps the parliamentary assistant would comment on section 14, which allows an auditor to enter, without a warrant, any premise or place where the business is being carried on. Bearing in mind that we are talking about self-employed people, the vast majority of the self-employed people would be working out of their own house.

Mr Elston: You've already asked this question.

Mr Arnott: He wasn't here.

Mr David Johnson: I wasn't here, and I understand the question had a slightly different slant to it, but if not, then just tell me that it's already been answered. But (a) it seems draconian that an auditor could enter into anybody's house without a warrant --

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. We're dealing with subsections 39(5) and (6) of the bill. I just want to remind you of that.

Mr David Johnson: I'll just bring it to a close, then, because unfortunately I was called out of the House. It seems draconian that an auditor would be able to enter without warrant into anybody's house, examine anybody's house because that's where the business is carried out, and question any person. Those people would undoubtedly be the children or the spouse or relatives of the individual involved. That is the kind of power that we see in this bill. I'm wondering if I'm reading that correctly and if that indeed is the kind of power that the parliamentary assistant believes is proper in Ontario in the 1990s.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, do you wish to make any comments?

Mr Sutherland: To the member for Don Mills on his last remark about the provision regarding entering to do audits, that is a fairly standard provision in tax bills and from my understanding has been in place for quite a while.

Let me also say that he raised a question earlier as to whether we've achieved the amounts that were estimated in the budget when we first brought this in. I believe he's referring of course to the provision covering the self-employed. That was brought in in the 1992 budget. This bill also incorporates changes that were made in 1993. Because the employer health tax wasn't deductible, there was a tax credit provision put in, so that change in 1993 had some impact on what the overall revenue was.

In his question regarding the cost of collection and administration, while I'm told that it's hard to definitely say on this provision regarding the self-employed, I'm told in general on the employer health tax that it costs about 47 cents for every $100 collected.

The Chair: Any further questions or comments? We're now voting on subsections 39(5) and (6) of this bill. Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare this vote stacked.

We're now dealing with section 40. Are there any questions? Are there any amendments?

Does section 40 carry? Carried.

By prior agreement, any divisions on Bills 110 and 138 will be taken upon completion of consideration of both bills today.

1730

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Consideration of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Any questions or any amendments to Bill 138? If so, would you please state them.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have an amendment to section 5 of the bill.

The Chair: Any further amendments?

Shall sections 1 through 4 carry? Carried.

Your amendment, please.

Mr Sutherland: I move that clauses 3.1(1)(c), (d) and (e) of the Retail Sales Tax Act, as set out in section 5 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(c) $0.26 per litre of beer or wine delivered to the person on or after August 1, 1993, and before April 19, 1994;

"(d) $0.13 per litre of beer or wine delivered to the person on or after April 19, 1994."

The Chair: Are there any comments? Any questions?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'll be supporting this amendment in the sense that it reduces the tax burden on what are called the you-brews. The original tax was 26 cents, and I gather that stays intact: 26 cents per litre on beer or wine through the businesses where you go in and you brew your own beer or you make your own wine.

From what I can understand now, the amendment is that there will be another tax added on top of that, 13 cents, but that is less than -- or the tax has been reduced, I guess. Perhaps a little clarification from the parliamentary assistant: Has the tax actually been reduced? Is the 13 cents a reduction in the tax or is the 13 cents on top of the tax that is already there? That's one part of the question.

The other part of the question is, does the parliamentary assistant have any statistics for us, since this tax on the you-brews was implemented back last year, on how many of the you-brews have gone out of business between then and now?

My understanding was that there were over 200 you-brews in the province of Ontario, and I believe somewhere in the vicinity of 30 or 40 have gone out of business, because since this tax was implemented, their business declined considerably and several of them have gone bankrupt. I wonder if the parliamentary assistant has any information on how many have actually gone bankrupt and given up.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say that I can't give the member for Don Mills an exact answer because I don't have those exact figures before me.

Let me also indicate that I think where the member for Don Mills is going on this is trying to say that for any bankruptcies or the you-brews that have gone out of business, the sole reason they've gone out of business was because of the tax we implemented. If we look at the numbers and the statistics for small business in general, what we do know is that many small businesses, a large proportion of them, don't make it past the five-year mark in general.

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): Especially in a niche market.

Mr Sutherland: As my colleague from Frontenac-Addington adds as well, especially in a niche market, which the folks who are operating you-brews are in.

I think we also need to remember that with the taxes imposed on the you-brews or produce-your-own beer or wine, those products were still much cheaper than any of the other type of beer or wine that is legally available in the province.

The Chair: Any further questions? Any further comments?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to speak to this issue. I've spoken to it I guess at least half a dozen times in this House. I want to paint a little bit of a picture in terms of the setting for this industry, which really was an anomaly in our province in terms of small business enterprise.

In four years, starting in 1990, this business grew to 235 outlets. The small business entrepreneurs involved sank $50 million into their businesses, an average $200,000 investment. These people mortgaged their homes and gave up their day jobs and they employed over 2,000 people. This is an example of small business at its very best and all of this again, to remind us, and I think it is very important, occurred during the deep, dark depths of the recession.

I think the government and our Treasurer speak loudly when they reduce this tax, and what they're telling us is that they made a terrible, terrible mistake which resulted in a loss of 400 jobs and the shutdown of at least 30 small businesses. I think the parliamentary assistant is mistaken in suggesting that this new tax that was imposed effective August 1 of last year did not present a very real obstacle for the continuing success of those businesses. The minister in fact had no choice but to roll back the tax. The tragic part of all of this is that it took the government so long to get its act together and to recognize the severe damage this tax was causing.

I am concerned as well by the fact the parliamentary assistant again makes reference, as the Treasurer has in this House, to the fact that beer that you make for yourself in a you-brew is substantially cheaper than when you buy it at the beer store, and of course that's correct. But when you go to the beer store you have a significant advantage, in one sense. All you do is slap down cash. When you go to a you-brew, there are two parts to the consideration, so to speak, that you're investing: One, you put in money, and two, you put in your time.

At some point, because everybody places some value on their time, it no longer becomes economically viable for you as an individual to go to the you-brews and it becomes cheaper, when you factor in your time, simply to go to the beer store and that's what happened here. We put a brand-new tax on the beer that you make at a you-brew of 26 cents a litre which hadn't been there before at all. As soon as you slapped that on, that drove off a number of customers.

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact, either, that these customers were already paying taxes. They pay provincial sales tax on the ingredients at the you-brew and they pay GST on the service component, so they're already paying all kinds of taxes and then the government hit them with a new one. Had the government properly done its homework with respect to this issue and, as well, listened to the concerns that were raised by the industry which predicted most capably the serious fallout effect the tax would have, I think the government would have not gone ahead with this tax. Instead, what we have today is a scenario where the government has decided it's going to roll back the tax. That's good news, but again, the bad news is we've lost 400 jobs in the interim, we've put those people out of work, they're now on social assistance or assistance of some kind, and we've shut down 30 businesses, and that is a tragedy.

Mr Sutherland: I want to respond a bit to the comments from the member for Ottawa South. Again, I want to indicate to him that I think his assertion that somehow this tax was responsible for all the loss of jobs or loss of businesses in this industry is simply not the case. I certainly hear it from some people who would argue that brew-your-owns came about by taking advantage of what some would perceive as a tax loophole, in terms of the fact that they found a way people wouldn't have to pay tax, in effect doing the same things as the so-called larger breweries do except that in this case what they were really doing was renting their brewery out to an individual person to come in and do that. As a result of some court rulings back in the 1980s, this allowed them to do this process. So I think we need to keep that in mind.

I think we also need to keep in mind that, as a general policy of this province and, I would say, as a policy of all the governments here, whether that be a Conservative government when they were in power, whether that be a Liberal government, and through this one, there has always been a policy in place that on spirits of all kinds -- wine, beer, distilled spirits -- there should be some form of tax. That does act as a deterrent in terms of our responsibility in trying to encourage responsible drinking and not excessive drinking. That policy has worked as a deterrent in that case throughout the province. So now we get down to the specifics of this situation with the brew-your-own.

1740

Mr McGuinty: One fact that I think is important for us to recognize, that outlines the significance or the importance of this particular industry, is that it is extremely labour-intensive. Although the you-brews occupy only 2% of the market, they employ, as I understand, about 40% of all of the people who work in the brewing industry in this province. That's why it's critical that the government lay whatever groundwork is necessary in order to act as a support system rather than as a deterrent.

The parliamentary assistant raises the issue of taxation on alcoholic beverages and I guess the traditional argument that's been advanced that this acts as a deterrent when it comes to drinking. I think there's probably an element of merit to that.

The concern I have is that this was a most legitimate form of business. There was nothing in the law that prevented people from doing that. I just think that if we are going to make an effort in this province to clamp down on people who are going to engage in a legal activity, who are going to go out with some friends down to a you-brew, buy some ingredients, mix the stuff together and come back in a few weeks, shake it up or whatever they do, and then bring the stuff home and enjoy it when they're doing whatever they do at home, watching the hockey game, for instance, I don't think that we should be, as a government, trying to eliminate or curtail that kind of activity.

I think we've got to start rethinking perhaps some of those policies, because as a businessman told me the other day, he said, "The problem that I have is you guys" -- referring to politicians generally -- "are making it harder and harder to play by the rules." He tells me, "I want to play by the rules, I want my kids to play by the rules, but politicians are essentially driving us underground."

That's my concern when we begin to tax people beyond a point of goodwill, if you will, to the point where they resort to engaging in black market activity and we lose the revenue that we normally can expect from a population that believes our taxes are fair. I think we're dangerously close to the edge in terms of pushing too many people into the black market.

Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the comments from Ottawa South. I guess the point is, how do we strike an appropriate balance between these different concerns? I believe the amendment being put forward helps to do that and does recognize that this is a new and growing industry and that sometimes in new industries and in growth there needs to be a bit of accommodation there. I believe the Minister of Finance has recognized that fact.

I hope you told that business person you were talking to the other day all the good things in the 1994 budget that are going to make it easier for him as a small business person to operate in terms of some of the clearing-the-path initiatives, the one-stop health centres that are going to be started up by September 1 and, of course, the incentive there under the employer health tax to hire new people. I'm certainly sure that as a responsible member, the member for Ottawa South gave all that information to this business person to show that politicians do respond to the concerns of all people, including small business people.

Mr David Johnson: It's good to see a little bit of a tiff going on here between the Liberals and the NDP. It's interesting that we're talking in section 5 about a tax increase to small business people, and the parliamentary assistant says that in terms of this particular tax, you can't put all the blame that some three dozen of the you-brews have gone bankrupt in a period of about a year, out of about 230.

I talked to the fellow who is up the street from me in a you-brew, and he says that when this tax went in, his business plummeted to less than half overnight, down to about 40% of what it was in the period before the tax. It's interesting to see the NDP come under fire for that.

The Chair: Would you please take your seat. It's now 5:45, and by our prior agreement we will now take a vote. We have several divisions on Bill 110. Call in the members. This will be a 10-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1746 to 1756.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Deferred vote on motions to amend Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Chair (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We're now voting on Bill 110, several votes on Bill 110. We'll start with the first one, the amendment introduced by Mr Arnott: subsection (1.1).

All those in favour will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with subsection 1(5). All those in favour of the motion will please rise. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now voting on subsection 1(8). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 1(8). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Subsection 1(10). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Is section 1 carried? Carried.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Same vote, reversed? The ayes are 61, the nays 28. I declare the motion carried.

We're now dealing with a new section, section 1.1, an amendment introduced by Mr Arnott.

All those in favour will please rise. Same vote, reversed?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with Mr Arnott's amendment to subsection 2(2). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with Mr Arnott's amendment, subsection 2(2). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 2 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

We're now dealing with section 3, an amendment brought by Mr Arnott, subsection 3(1). Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with an amendment to subsection 3(2) by Mr Arnott. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

We're now dealing with an amendment to section 3 by Mr Arnott.

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 3 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the section carried.

We're now dealing with section 5, an amendment to subsection 5(6) introduced by Mr Arnott. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 5 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

We're now dealing with section 6. This section was deferred.

All those in favour will please rise.

All those opposed will please rise.

The ayes are 61, the nays 28. I declare the motion carried.

We're now dealing with section 7, an amendment to section 7 introduced by Mr Arnott. Same vote, reversed?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 7 carry? Carried.

We're now dealing with section 13, an amendment to section 13 introduced by Mr Arnott. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 13 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare section 13 carried.

We're now dealing with subsection 38(3), an amendment introduced by Mr Arnott. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 38 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare section 38 carried.

We're now dealing with section 39, an amendment to subsections (5) and (6) introduced by Mr Arnott. Same vote?

The ayes are 28, the nays 61. I declare the motion lost.

Shall section 39 carry? Carried.

Shall the title carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it. Same vote?

The ayes are 61, the nays 28. I declare the motion carried.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Chair, I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the motion carry? Carried.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill and asks for leave to sit again.

Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1807.

16 mai 1994