Hansard Transcript 1988-Jan-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs. Grier: In May 1987, I introduced into this Legislature An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act. That bill was a very simple amendment that would have provided that cyclists had to provide their name and address to a policeman if asked to do so on the highway. That bill was circulated to a number of city councils and received wide support from councils all across the province and from many citizens.

I was therefore delighted to find that in June 1987 the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) had written to the city of Toronto council to say:

“I am recommending to cabinet that the Highway Traffic Act be amended to authorize a police officer to require a cyclist to identify him or herself where an officer has reason to believe that an offence has been committed. It is my hope that such an amendment will be introduced and, if possible, passed before the summer adjournment.”

The date of that letter, as I say, was June 1987.

What this commitment was for was a very simple, straightforward piece of legislation that had widespread support and that would have been adopted unanimously, I am sure, by this House. What I would like to know from the minister and from the government is, what have they been waiting for? Why now, in January 1988, have we seen no initiative to do this simple piece of corrective legislation?

TORONTO AREA TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Cousens: The time has come for the province to look at the transportation needs of greater Metropolitan Toronto. I am thinking of the regions that surround Metropolitan Toronto -- York, Durham and Peel -- where already there are thousands of commuters who are using the Toronto transit system; they are coming into Toronto to work, to study, to shop and to do so many things that have helped make Toronto such a prosperous area. None the less, the people outside of Metropolitan Toronto, as it is now described, are being deprived of good transportation services.

The time has come for the province to review and investigate a way of integrating the services for transportation outside of Metropolitan Toronto, so that those commuters and those people who want to use the Toronto Transit Commission are not otherwise being hampered.

I would like to see a system that begins to recognize that seniors and students who want to use those services cannot qualify for discount rates. I would like to see a system where there is a better integration of services outside Metropolitan Toronto, so those people who are in Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga or wherever can then link into that system and take advantage of this commuter system.

The roads do not work, yet TTC does, and can be improved in such a way that these services can be far more meaningful to people. Ontario already has a significant investment in the TTC. Let us have some more involvement.

ATLAS OF THE BREEDING BIRDS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Adams: I am pleased to draw the attention of the House to a largely volunteer project which involved literally every square centimetre of every riding represented here. This is the 640-page Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario. This magnificent and valuable publication documents the breeding locations of nearly 300 bird species in this province. It was produced through hundreds of thousands of volunteer hours by 1,400 persons. These volunteers worked from the Arctic seashore and tundra of Ontario’s north to the inner cities of the south.

The Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Ontario is more than a decorative publication we would all be proud to own. It is a baseline against which hundreds of thousands of amateur and professional birdwatchers can monitor the health of our everyday environment.

We should congratulate the sponsors of the atlas, the Federation of Ontario Naturalists and the Long Point observatory. We should also congratulate the editors, Fred Helliner of Trent University, Mike Cadman of the FON and the appropriately named Paul Eagles. Mr. Eagles is a high-flying professor at the University of Waterloo. Above all, we should congratulate those 1,400 of our constituents who made the atlas possible. Thanks to them, the province of Ontario has a world-class breeding bird atlas.

MEMBERS’ SALARIES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, it is with great delight that I see the government House leader and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) here today, those two parsimonious examples of government restraint who are holding back the salaries of the Liberal back-benchers.

I have in my hand a comment from the Toronto Star about Metro council’s decision perhaps to raise their salaries to $7,000 more a year than the Liberal back-benchers. Not only that; it was a great, well-known Liberal, June Rowlands, who said those councillors do three times the work that those guys do. It is interesting that that should happen today, as we are about to try to pass our pay bill to keep us poorer than the councillors.

Perhaps the muzzling of the back-benchers that has been required, and the dire circumstances if anybody speaks against this, will be lifted, so people can move an amendment to the act reforming Metropolitan council this afternoon to say that the members of this House should set the salaries for Metro council. If we cannot have that, perhaps to raise our salaries at least, we might tie our salaries to theirs.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Harris: More than a dozen times in the past month and a half, I, along with other members of our caucus, have raised the issue of Sunday shopping in this House. The actions of this government have needlessly inflamed this issue and caused disruption and confusion in communities across this province.

Every Christmas season since this government came to office, it has said it would deal with the issue. Last spring, the government commissioned an all-party task force on Sunday shopping. That task force recommended that Sunday be maintained as a common pause day throughout Ontario, allowing families one day which they could spend together. That is the position of my party, one which we have been pressing the Peterson government to adopt.

We support the family and the protection of workers in this regard. Clearly, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) does not understand the implications of his political skating on this issue. He has not stood up for the family, he has not stood up for the retail workers and he has not stood up for the small business owners. Penalizing furniture dealers, automobile dealers, people in the hardware trade and many others for his own political expediency is something we deeply regret. We call upon this government, on this last day of the session, to reflect on what it is doing and to adopt our position and support a common pause day in Ontario.

1010

FOOD DISTRIBUTION

Mr. Owen: Since the dawn of civilization, we have had two basic needs essential to our survival: food and shelter. Those of us lucky enough to have a warm place to live and enough food to eat may find it easy to forget that here in Ontario people go to sleep at night homeless and hungry. It is indeed fortunate for us that people like Bill Friend, the president of the Barrie Community Food Foundation, and Barb Taylor, the manager of the Barrie Food Bank, do not forget. They are just two of hundreds of volunteers across Ontario who believe that every person has the right to a bed and breakfast.

The city of Barrie has become a magnet for job seekers from across Canada. When they arrive, many do find jobs, but unfortunately, few are successful in finding an affordable place to live. What we end up with is a vicious circle with people spending up to 80 per cent of their income for a roof over their heads only to find that what is left over will not cover the monthly food bill.

Close to 3,600 such people received help from the Barrie Food Bank in 1987, an increase of almost 30 per cent from 1986, and it is getting worse. As many as 350 to 400 Barrie children rely on the food bank every month.

Hostels and food banks do not have to be a fact of life in Ontario. We do not have to sit idly by and watch the Bill Friends and the Barbara Taylors of this province do their job because we fail to do ours. We can and, indeed, we must fully commit ourselves to putting the food banks in Ontario out of business.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am concerned about the lack of action on private members’ legislation finding its way into committees. There is the environmental bill of rights by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), which we had hoped would be referred out to committee but which I understand is not being referred out.

Today I have learned that the standing committee on social development has got nothing on its plate at all during the spring break, even though there is a private member’s bill which has passed this House in the name of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) on community mental health, because the chairman of the social development committee has failed to present to the House leaders of this chamber a request that we sit to plan out hearings on that matter and even though the committee stated by resolution that it wished this to happen and for the last two weeks he has been lobbied to do so.

I am very disheartened to feel that perhaps this government is deliberately standing in the way of opposition private members’ business going to committees which have no other business before them to deal with.

Mr. Speaker: That completes members’ statements.

Mr. Jackson: Mr. Speaker, may we have the unanimous approval of the House to make a statement about Ukrainian Christmas today?

Agreed to.

CELEBRATION OF JULIAN CHRISTMAS

Mr. Jackson: I would like to take this moment to express warmest wishes to our citizens who are celebrating Ukrainian Christmas today. There are approximately 150,000 Ukrainians as well as Serbians in this province who are observing this holy day according to the Julian calendar, beginning yesterday with the traditional Ukrainian dinner, which is typified by a special meatless traditional dinner prepared in 12 stages in reverence to the 12 apostles. This meal also involves the setting of a special place for family members who have passed away in the previous year. It is followed by a traditional mass, and in the morning the children of the Ukrainian community go from house to house singing carols and raising funds for charity. In fact, the children of St. Mary’s congregation in Burlington gave their proceeds to an orphanage in Argentina last year.

These nationalities observe this most holy of days, and it is typified by a certain spirituality built around the family. That tradition has been passed on through many generations. In fact, it has been observed by my family, given that my grandfather was born in the Ukraine and came to Canada. My family last night met in Toronto and observed this rich and religious ceremony.

We are very fortunate indeed in Ontario that we live in a multicultural society, whereby our lives have been enriched by the contributions of the eastern European peoples, and we share with them today in this House a sense of reverence and a deep respect for this holiest of holy days. We also acknowledge the fact that this is the 1,000th year of recognition of Christianity by the Ukrainian people.

It is an honour for us to express our respect for this holy day, and I am proud and pleased to do so.

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Hamilton West -- pardon me, Scarborough West.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is all the same, Mr. Speaker, if it is not rural Ontario.

As a member who follows the Gregorian calendar, I would like to join the member for Burlington South in recognizing the existence of the Julian calendar and its importance to a number of communities in Ontario in its multicultural reality. It is always an expanding experience for all of us to understand the complexities and the traditions and the strength of feeling among the various communities.

This holy day for the people of the Ukrainian and Serbian communities is one that I think is important for all members to recognize, especially as this is the millennium of Christianity coming to the Soviet Union and to the Ukraine, a time which has a special meaning for people from the Ukrainian community, especially given some of the suppression of religion that has taken place in the Soviet Union which they have had to fight these many, many years.

It is, however, I am reminded, a time when many misunderstandings take place around whom this applies to. Just this morning on Metro Morning, I heard Joe Coté talking about all the various groups in our society which are under the Julian calendar, listing Lithuanians, Estonians and others who, I would remind him and others, are in fact part of the Gregorian calendar. He had a real misunderstanding there.

For those communities who are celebrating their Christmas today, I wish them all the best, and it is important that the House recognize those traditions.

Mr. Kozyra: I too would like to add my greetings to those celebrating this traditional holiday. As members know and as has already been mentioned, the Julian calendar holds certain traditional holidays 13 days later than the Gregorian calendar, and I would like to say there is no truth to the rumour that this government invented the Julian calendar so that it could have the great debate on free trade and still finish before Christmas.

I would like to say that I am proud to be of Ukrainian descent and follow this festive tradition. For those of you without the benefit of instantaneous Ukrainian translation, the greetings I bring you will say, “Best greetings and joyous greetings and festive greetings for Christmas and good luck in the new year.”

[Remarks in Ukrainian]

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

Hon. Mr. Scott: Last May I announced in the House the appointment of a committee to review the need for an international commercial arbitration centre in Ontario. Today I would like to table that committee’s report.

The review was commissioned because Canada had just joined the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. Also, the federal government and a number of provinces were on the point of introducing modern laws to govern international commercial arbitration conducted in this country.

Since then, all provinces except Ontario and Saskatchewan have passed new laws -- Ontario’s is presently before the Legislature as Bill 7 -- governing international commercial arbitrations; and Quebec indeed has opened a centre, which makes it the second centre after British Columbia.

An international arbitration centre would settle disputes involving parties from more than one country or that involve transactions to be undertaken in more than one country.

The committee which reviewed the possibility of establishing an international centre here were all members of the private sector with experience in arbitration. They were David Bristow, Martin Teplitsky and Chris Paliare, all practising lawyers in Toronto; William Graham of the University of Toronto’s faculty of law, Paul Walters, a consulting engineer; and Edward Chick, a vice-president of the Royal Insurance Company. They all served without remuneration.

1020

The committee reported that the anticipated volume of international commercial arbitration in Toronto does not justify setting up such a centre for that purpose alone. However, it believes there will be increasing demand for all forms of arbitration ---local, labour relations, as well as international -- and it therefore recommends establishing a centre to meet this demand.

Arbitration, as members will know, has a number of advantages over court proceedings. For example, arbitration is usually faster and, for that reason, cheaper than going to court. The parties can choose an arbitrator with expertise in their field. The rules for arbitration can be more flexible since the parties can establish most of them. Also, arbitration is done privately, eliminating the need for disputants to air their differences in public.

The committee recommended a centre that would be administered quite separately from the judicial system so as to emphasize that it represents an alternative to court litigation.

The committee believes a reasonable fee for the use of the centre and its facilities would cover the cost of operating it within a couple of years. The startup costs, however, are another matter. The committee suggested it might be desirable to have the centre partially funded by the private sector in order to distance it from government.

I want to assure all honourable members that the government and my ministry propose to take this report seriously. I also want to thank the members of the committee for their very thorough review and their constructive and useful recommendations.

RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE

Mr. B. Rae: In response to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), we appreciate the report of the committee, but it seems to me, at any rate, on reading the report that there is a need for the government, before it makes a decision about establishing an arbitration centre, to look at what are the broader problems affecting the arbitration process in the province.

The Attorney General is as experienced in this matter as anybody in the province, but I am sure he will be aware of the increasing unhappiness in the trade union community with the current arbitration process, with the length of time, with the cost, with the delays, with the increasing reliance on lawyers in order to be able to present cases, when the point of the process was to get away from the requirement that lawyers be used.

I hope very much that in looking at this report the government will look hard at the recommendations in terms of the modernization of the Arbitrations Act and the need for us to look at the labour legislation to see whether there is not a way of improving it.

If we do that, then we are able to say this is the kind of centre that will be established. It will be involved in industrial relations disputes as well as in commercial ones of a private nature, nationally, provincially and internationally. In that kind of context, I think we could all agree that an arbitration centre would be a very exciting idea and would make a lot of sense.

The possibility of convincing someone, for example with the experience and depth of understanding of the Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) -- who, I think, would agree that it would be wise; if we could get away from relying on lawyers and allow individuals to settle their own disputes without having to go to lawyers, it would be a good idea. If we can do it in a way which is fast, which is speedy and which allows people to resolve their disputes informally in front of an arbitrator, then that is a good idea too. If it means spending a little bit of money at the beginning in order to get that done, then that is money well spent, which is sometimes how money should be spent.

Mr. Hampton: I want to second some of the comments made by my leader and I want to bring to the Attorney General’s attention that he might do better asking the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) for funds for the establishment of an arbitration centre; since that might be conducted in combination with the private sector, he might be more successful in promoting an arbitration centre than he would be in getting the Treasurer to unlock the keys to the Treasury for a large number of court expansions and new court facilities.

In fact, as I read the report of the committee, what it is also suggesting is that the centre look at actually actively promoting arbitration. I think this is something the centre should be involved in and something the government should attempt to follow up with groups in the private sector, because I think it definitely has possibilities in terms of quick and inexpensive dispute settlement.

Mr. Eves: I would like to rise on behalf of our party and state that we are certainly in agreement with the recommendations made by the committee. If you look down the names of those committee members, they are very distinguished, well-respected, well-qualified individuals. I would certainly agree with the comments of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) that this is perhaps also a good opportunity to look at the arbitration process as a whole, not only with respect to foreign arbitration but also with respect to the arbitration process in Ontario.

We, in our party, look forward to the government committing the necessary funding to such a centre. Who knows, this might be the first step the Attorney General can take toward recognizing the dispute settlement mechanism in the free trade agreement. He might take this one small step along the way. He might even get some enlightenment out of this over a period of time.

Mr. Sterling: Like my other colleagues in the Legislature, I would like to support this kind of move, but I would like to see our province strengthen our Arbitrations Act so that it would be possible for private parties to go to arbitration and have an order with the power of a court order, therefore avoiding the tying up of courts and allowing private parties to settle their own disputes without involving public expense.

Each court case, although each side pays for its legal counsel and its experts, etc., does cost this province significant amounts of money. I believe large commercial cases could be heard by an arbitration proceeding as long as, under our Arbitrations Act, that particular proceeding was given the same force as a court order.

I look forward to the Attorney General giving the arbitrators within our province the same kinds of powers they have in some states of the United States.

Mr. Harris: I have one comment that neither of our two critics would probably want to associate himself with. I was disappointed that this committee was dominated by lawyers.

Mr. Jackson: Surprised they ever reported.

Mr. Sterling: I might add they did that work without remuneration. I must speak on behalf of the bench.

Mr. Brandt: That is a first.

Mr. Speaker: That completes ministerial statements and responses.

Mr. Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to rise and correct the record of Hansard of January 6, 1988, regarding the statement, “The average rent increase for people living in rental housing in Metro from October 1986 to October 1987 was 4.5 per cent.” I wish to advise the House that this statement is deceptive and incorrect and I ask that the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) remove that statement from the briefing book from which --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. It would have been had the member wanted to correct his own statement.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRESTONE CANADA INC.

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions of the Treasurer about the windup of the Firestone pension plan. In the Treasurer’s statement yesterday, I want to make it clear that everything he said is in accordance with the regulations, and that may be the problem; it may be that the law is not strong enough. One of the things the Treasurer said is that lump sum payouts or transfers of funds to members transferring to another pension plan are going to be prohibited because of the fact there is a significant underfunding of the plan. He then went on to say that Firestone would have to pay interest on that money.

Last year the Pension Commission of Ontario rate of interest, which was required by the pension commission, was 6.5 per cent. The rate of a guaranteed investment certificate, if somebody took a payout and was able to put it into a self-administered registered retirement savings plan or buy a certificate for five years, would be somewhere around 9.5 per cent, 10 per cent or 10.5 per cent depending on the time of year one bought it.

Does he really think it is fair that the workers who have been fired by Firestone should be subsidizing Firestone to the tune of three per cent or four per cent per annum?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the interest rate the Leader of the Opposition describes is set by regulation on the basis of current rates. If I recall these regulations were established when the amendments were approved by the House about a year ago and they should be kept up to date. There is no reason anybody should be subsidizing the financial requirements of the company that is responsible for the payout.

1030

Mr. B. Rae: Let us go over this again; let us look at the difference, because I think it is important for people to understand. The $30,000 paid out at 6.5 per cent for five years gets you $41,100 at the end of the five years; $30,000 at 10 per cent for five years gets you $48,300. That is a difference of over $7,000 to that individual worker.

The rate that was set last year at 6.5 per cent was still substantially lower than those rates paid by banks for guaranteed investment certificates, lower than the average rate of return of any self-administered registered retirement savings plan, on average, across the province -- significantly lower, in other words, than what workers would be able to get if they were able to get their hands on that money.

Does the Treasurer not think it fair in the circumstances that he sit down with Firestone and attempt to use whatever suasion he can and, if necessary, change the regulations in order to ensure that working people who have been fired by this company, which made $24 million last year, are not in the position of having to subsidize those people who are taking their money and running off to the United States?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The rates cannot be made to vary day by day. On the other hand, the honourable member points out that even at 6.5 per cent they were substantially lower even a year ago. My understanding is that the pension commission establishes these rates in consultation with both the companies that are responsible for the pension and the representatives of their employees. I would agree that the rates ought to reflect current rates, within reason, but they cannot be adjusted day by day, on a daily interest basis.

I will look into the fact that they seem to be out of line on this basis. I say again that the pension commission has the responsibility, which it has fulfilled, of dealing with both parties to the pension agreement.

Mr. B. Rae: I would like the Treasurer to be able to give us a categorical assurance that the rate which the commission will charge Firestone and guarantee to the workers who have been fired will be at least the same as the market rate which they would get on five-year money in a private institution. They have to have at least that guarantee. Otherwise, the effect is going to be that workers who have been fired cannot get access to their money, not because they do not have a right to it but because the company has decided not to contribute to the plan and has made that purposeful decision not because it is bankrupt but because it has chosen to take that money and go to the United States with it. Can the Treasurer guarantee --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I say to the House and to the honourable member that I believe the rate should be fair or be the rate that is agreed to by the parties concerned.

Mr. B. Rae: What choice do the workers --

Mr. Speaker: Question, the Leader of the Opposition.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The minister has commented in the last few days on the problems that we are all aware of over the last weekend with respect to two particular incidents of hospitals in Toronto not being able to provide services because of what she has described as a nursing shortage. The minister pointed with pride yesterday to the fact that she had activated a committee which met once in December and which is supposed to be meeting again in February. Can the minister, having been the minister and having been in a govemment that has been in power now for two and a half years, tell us what her explanation is for the shortage itself.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would like to respond to the Leader of the Opposition by noting, as I am sure he is aware, that there are two very distinct issues we are dealing with here. One is the capacity of the perinatal system and the other is the requirement for nurses to serve in the neonatal units. There are two very distinct issues.

As soon as I became aware of the nursing shortage, shortly after arriving at the Ministry of Health, I quickly reactivated a committee which had been looking at nursing manpower since the 1980s and asked it to see if it could address this issue expeditiously, because the information I had been given was that this was a cyclical problem.

Mr. B. Rae: It is also a problem that is not just one affecting neonatal units and affecting perinatal units. You can talk to patients whose surgery has been delayed or cancelled. You can talk to nurses who have decided to get out of some kinds of intensive and critical care nursing because the rewards are simply not there in terms of the kind of stress which they have to go through. You can talk to literally thousands of nurses who have left nursing or who have left Ontario for other places because the system is not working in the province. I hope the minister does not think that the problem is just confined to those two particular areas of nursing care, because I can assure her that is not the case and that is not what is going on out there.

Can the minister assure us that when she gets the report in February, which we now understand is when she is going to get it, it will be followed by action and by not simply another committee?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that l am very concerned about how we plan for health professionals and health care workers in this province. I believe our health system at the present time is functioning, although there are stresses in the system in all areas relating to some areas where we have shortages. I have already discussed this issue as specific to nursing with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and with the Ontario Nurses’ Association.

If the member has any information or advice, I would be pleased to hear from him on his suggestions. I can assure him that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and the Ministry of Health are looking to see how we can address this cyclical problem, which over the past number of years has had periods of surpluses of nurses and now shortages of nurses, to try to smooth that out and still expand and provide the services to the people of the province.

Mr. B. Rae: When the minister says it is only cyclical and that is the primary problem, I must say to her that has not been my impression from talking with a number of nurses and people in the profession all the time.

It is a question of status. It is a question of job reward. It is a question of decision-making. It is a question of the power structure in the hospital system. It is a question of their salaries. It is a question of their satisfaction. It is a question of their family lives. It is a question of their stress.

All those are factors, and I think if the minister is just going to look at the cyclical problem and say it is a question of making sure that everything is in place on that side of things in terms of the numbers, I really say to the minister, with great respect, she is just missing the boat. It is a much bigger problem than that. It specifically relates to nursing and it specifically relates to the kind of attention and care that we give to the people who, after all, are really the critical care givers in terms of the overall work of the health care system and of our hospital system. They are at the core in terms of what is there.

Again, can the minister assure us that steps will be taken in February to look at these broader problems and not simply see it as a question of numbers and cycles?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition that steps not only will be taken, but that steps have already been taken. The nursing schools in this province are at capacity. We have increased that capacity just this past September. We are looking at the broader question, the broader issues and some of the policies of the profession itself, those policies which restrict merit pay.

Those are the kinds of things where I think the profession must come together and advise me. I have asked them to do that. I asked them to do that as soon as this came to my attention a couple of months ago and I will be looking forward to hearing their advice as early as they can present it, because I have asked them to report to me as early as February.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier regarding a statement he made on January 4 relating to IDEA Corp., and I quote from the Hansard of that day: “As I understand it, no new responsibilities were taken on,” from February 1986 to June 30, 1986, “it was just winding down the portfolio it had at that time.”

If that was the case and if in fact IDEA Corp. was just winding down, I wonder why, in the four-month period that I have just outlined, IDEA invested some $10.4 million or almost 25 per cent of the entire investment of IDEA Corp. during the lifetime of IDEA Corp. That was during the selfsame time as the Premier was indicating it was winding down. Do those remarks not seem somewhat out of sorts with the Premier in terms of what he implied and what actually happened?

1040

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me refer that to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There seems to be some confusion in the minds of people of what the process is when we talk about winding down the IDEA Corp. There is no question that as of July 1986, the IDEA Corp. portfolio was transferred to the Ontario Development Corp. The decision was made to wind down the IDEA Corp. The decision was not made to take all of the companies that had been funded by the previous IDEA Corp. and now continuing to be monitored by ODC and say to them: “You must close down your doors, forget about your business, fire all of these people. Goodbye.”

What we have undertaken and what we continue to do is to monitor the 30-odd companies that are being funded through the previous IDEA Corp. and the present ODC. As they require additional funding to keep them viable, if they can make the business case, we are doing it. I will say to honourable members we have in reserve something in the neighbourhood of $10 million to $12 million to do that. If companies can come forward to us and make the case, we are keeping them going because we are convinced that those companies in our portfolio that are viable will ultimately make a return to the taxpayers and will in fact prosper.

Mr. Brandt: I know the minister is aware that from the inception of the IDEA Corp. in 1981 until June 1985, the losses represented some $2.7 million, which was 10.1 per cent of the total losses that were going to be realized by IDEA Corp. From July 1985 until June 1986, there was $19.4 million, representing 72.4 per cent of all the losses, and from June 1986 until this point in time, $4.7 million, taking into account the additional moneys that the minister has set aside for some of the anticipated losses that may still occur. That represents another 17.5 per cent.

What this boils down to and what the minister, the Premier and this government should be concerned about is that 90 per cent of all losses in IDEA Corp. have occurred during the life of this government.

I would ask the minister a simple question. As a result of the 90 per cent during the period from July 1985 until now and the total of some $24 million, rounded, that has been lost, could the minister indicate how that could occur in that short time frame, that 90 per cent of all the losses of IDEA Corp. occurred under this administration?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are several reasons for that to happen and I would be happy to outline what some of them are. In many cases, the previous administration of the portfolio -- as the previous government did -- kept loans on its books because it made the balance sheets look good. We had that with Minaki Lodge and with Suncor. When we got in, we decided, “Let us get a balance sheet that truly reflects what the potential is for these investments.” So they show up as losses, and I admit that. That is one of the reasons. It was a matter of taking a look and, in the jargon, biting the bullet and saying, “Let us make sure we know what we are dealing with.”

There is another factor that the member should be aware of, and this came up in estimates. He has to understand the purpose of both the IDEA Corp. and the Ontario Development Corp. We are providing funds of a very high risk nature. That is the role we are playing. We are trying to get companies that are highly innovative, that have a great deal of potential, but we understand that these funds are at risk. As a matter of fact, at estimates, members of the official opposition were critical, saying we should be prepared to lose more money and to provide funding to companies so that they may have a chance to survive The member himself in a comment last week stated that maybe we should have put more money into PRA.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Brandt: Let me give the minister a review of the individuals and the institutions that are either investigating or inquiring into the affairs of IDEA Corp. and the investments of that corporation since October 1986. We have John Kruger, the special adviser to the Premier: Bob Carman, the secretary of the cabinet; the standing committee on public accounts; Jack Biddell; the Ontario Development Corp.; Peat Marwick; Coopers and Lybrand; the Ontario Provincial Police, which have two ongoing investigations; and the Office of the Provincial Auditor.

As I stated before, $24 million has been lost since July 1985. How many more studies, how many more delays is this government going to allow to occur before it does the right and proper thing: forget the smokescreens and call for a judicial review so that it gets everything out in public and everything on the table?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Again we have an accusation by innuendo that there is something untoward about these investments. I can tell the member that although I am not exactly thrilled with the idea that we are losing money, he has to understand the mandate of the IDEA Corp., our Innovation Ontario Corp. and all these other programs we have in place to try to encourage innovative, state-of-the-art development in this province. That is the only way we are going to become competitive.

Now, notwithstanding that there are losses and notwithstanding that I am not happy about them, no one has been able to convince me, or the Provincial Auditor in his recent audit of the IDEA Corp., that there was anything untoward, other than the fact that we are investing in very high risk ventures.

Mr. Brandt: That still does not answer the question of why the government will not move to the proper mechanism for clearing the air on this rather than go through this long litany of other approaches that have proved to be less than satisfactory.

Continuing on with this question, if I can get back to the Premier with respect to the primary goal of the auditor, who has now been called into play in connection with PRA International, the goal of the auditor is to assist the Legislature in holding the government and its administrators accountable by reporting to the Legislature on the quality of the administration’s stewardship of public funds. The Provincial Auditor’s secondary goal is as follows: to assist deputy ministers and agency heads in holding their administrations accountable by reporting to them on the quality of the ministries’ agencies’ stewardship of public funds.

I would like to ask the Premier, given that that is the background of the auditor’s responsibilities as laid out by the government, how does he see that that fits into the investigation the auditor is supposed to undertake in this particular connection relative to PRA, when it is an investigation involving police documents, alleged commercial fraud, perceived political influence -- a whole series of things? How can the auditor look into those kinds of questions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not see that there is any problem at all. I think he has been guaranteed access to anything he feels he should have access to. He is the servant of this House. His is an office that is respected by all. His reports go to the standing committee on public accounts, chaired by a member opposite, and they can be reviewed by all members there.

Let me tell my honourable friend that the Provincial Auditor was chosen because of the great faith we have in his impartiality, the fact that he is a servant of this House, the fact that he has experience and he will be able to move quickly. The report will go to the committee for all to discuss and second-guess, so it has a political check on it as well. My friend asks me the same question almost every day, two or three times a day, but I just say to my friend that I think his approach is wrong.

Mr. Brandt: It is interesting to note that section 17 of the act relating to the auditor requires the Provincial Auditor to undertake special assignments requested by the assembly, the standing committee on public accounts by resolution of that committee, or by a minister, provided that these special assignments do not take precedence over the auditor’s other duties.

Now, given the importance of this particular question, the losses related to IDEA Corp. and the questions we have been raising on a daily basis with the Premier, does he not feel that he is in danger of attempting to politicize the auditor’s role as it relates to the investigation, limited though it may be under the terms of the act, and as it relates to this whole matter of the IDEA Corp. review?

1050

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Not at all, and in asking that question, the member is questioning, I say respectfully, the credentials of the auditor. He is saying that he is being politicized. I say to my honourable friend, if anybody is politicizing it is him. It is the innuendo he is raising on a daily basis.

Let me tell him, I stand in front of him completely confident that there is no political involvement, as he would try to suggest on a daily basis. Nothing is covered up at all. It is all there for the Provincial Auditor, a respected figure, to determine.

I believe all the facts should come out, and he will be assisted in every way to do that. I am sure he will read Hansard and he will take the member’s advice on the kinds of things that he should be investigating, because if he does not, the member and the members opposite can go to the standing committee on public accounts and say, “Did you investigate this?” and “What about this?”

My honourable friend not only has the integrity and the independence of the auditor’s office but also has the political check at the end through the public accounts committee. In other words, he has two avenues to explore all aspects of this. Surely that should satisfy him.

I know my honourable friend has put forward a suggestion. First he asked for a police inquiry and then he changed his mind and wanted a judicial inquiry, but we do not think it is the appropriate or expeditious way to deal with it. We think this is the way it is completely fair. I guess we just have a difference of opinion on this matter.

Mr. Brandt: I want to make it perfectly clear to the Premier that in no way am I challenging or questioning the integrity of the Provincial Auditor as it relates to this situation. I am questioning the Premier on the terms of reference of the auditor’s position and responsibility, as laid out and incorporated in the legislation of this particular province.

Let us talk about the expeditious way in which the government is handling this. On October 14, 1986, the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the member for Quinte (Mr. O’Neil), asked Mr. Biddell for an immediate report. We are still waiting for that one.

On December 11, 1986, the Premier said the Ontario Provincial Police route was the quickest way to get to the bottom of the Wyda Systems mess. One year later, we are still waiting for his expeditious handling of that matter.

On January 4, 1988, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter) asked the Provincial Auditor to do his work quickly, and yet as of today at 10:20 of the clock, when we checked, the Provincial Auditor still did not have any indication from the Premier’s office or from the office of the minister with respect to his terms of reference.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Brandt: When will the Premier stop hiding behind the auditor and the OPP and the committees and every other investigative process that he has set up? If he has nothing to hide, simply send the whole matter over to a judicial review, get it out in public, so we can find out who was responsible for what as it relates to the losses of IDEA Corp.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to my honourable friend that he has read the provisions of the Audit Act, and it allows for the auditor to take on special work.

Mr. Eves: It doesn’t allow him to take on special work.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Of course it does, and we have said that he can have any resources that are necessary in the circumstances. The minister said yesterday we will assist him in any way to make sure he can pursue any avenue he would like to pursue. All information will be turned over to him. The police will be requested to co-operate with him in all respects.

My honourable friend has this impression that something is being covered up. What he does not understand is that we do not do things the way they used to do them. I am happy to have this all investigated. Let me tell the member, we stand up and take this innuendo from him every single day and I am prepared to stand up and let it all be there.

When the judgement is made on this, those people who formed the IDEA Corp., their appointees, their Mr. Macdonald, their Mr. Blakley -- not our appointments -- when those judgements are questioned, the judgement that they brought to bear on this --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

TARIFFS ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Treasurer with regard to the use of the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber. The Treasurer will know that the 15 per cent export tax resulting from the softwood lumber export pricing agreement has meant a transfer from the federal government to this Treasury of $2 million a month, a total accumulation of between $20 million and $25 million to date.

Since the Premier stated at the time the export tax was imposed that the provincial government would use this revenue to assist lumber communities adversely affected by loss of markets and layoffs, would the Treasurer inform the House of the programs that the provincial government has implemented, how much money has been allocated to each, and list the specific northern communities that have been assisted?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would be glad to provide a written answer to the honourable member as to the improvements in support for northern communities, but he is aware that the budget of last May indicated clearly that the heritage fund and training programs in the north, a wide variety of programs, would utilize these additional dollars. I want to make it clear that we do not have earmarked dollars in that respect, but certainly those funds which are going to accrue to the Treasurer of the province will be spent in that way.

I think the member should also be aware that we find this additional tax, which we really felt in the long run was not necessary, is interfering with the buoyancy of that aspect of the development of the north. The government of Canada has handled this in the most awkward way that could possibly be imagined. We feel that the negative indications for the development of the north are quite serious. However, I can assure the honourable member that equivalent dollars, in addition, are being spent in the north, as indicated by the budget.

Mr. Wildman: The Treasurer will know that his government was an accomplice to the federal government in the bungling of this whole affair. Will the Treasurer confirm and assure the House that the moneys the Premier said would be used to assist the lumbering communities will not be used to form the heritage fund which is to be used for all communities in northern Ontario, but the $20 million to $25 million that this Treasury has received will be used specifically to help lumbering communities that have suffered layoffs and loss of markets because of this dumb deal that the federal government, along with this government, has acquiesced to with the US?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: This matter has been raised repeatedly in the House. The government position historically, and from our position in this House, is clear. We felt that the federal government did not act effectively in this regard, but we were caught in this net. The 15 per cent was collected and is now being rebated here.

I would say again to the honourable member, we do not have earmarked dollars but the allocation of funds to the north has been far in excess of the moneys that are being accrued from that particular source.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Jackson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing.

Mr. B. Rae: Just make it up as you go, Cam.

Mr. Jackson: That is about what I am going to have to do with the amount of notice I was given.

I have two documents in front of me with respect to Bill 51, the Residential Rent Regulation Act. Under the old legislation, when an award was made by the ministry, a statement was included on all notices to landlords and subsequently to tenants, which states the justified percentage increase, and it is expressed as a percentage figure for a tenant to see and comprehend its impact. It states it is an increase, justified.

As well, I have in the House today a copy of one of the long-awaited awards in the province under the new legislation, and this document is somewhat different from what was proposed by this House in order for it to be clear and comprehensible for tenants.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Jackson: Specifically this document says only that there is a total proposed maximum rent, and what is notably absent is the reference to a justified percentage increase.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Jackson: This represents --

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Jackson: I want to ask the minister why she has allowed her ministerial staff to allow awards to go out to the hundreds of thousands of tenants in Ontario that are deficient in this information, for what amounts to a deception as to what is the total rent award which they will be receiving.

Mr. Speaker: The question has now been asked.

Mr. Jackson: Is the minister that afraid of Bill 51?

1100

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I find it very interesting that the honourable member opposite takes this particular tone. Let me ask him a question. I have in front of me a secret document written by the member, circulated to the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, circulated only to chamber members, in December 1986, the time at which our bill came forward.

He has been talking about the concerns he has about the tenants who live in our housing and who are protected by the rent review legislation. What he has said here is: “As long as we have controls, and as long as the belief is that controls are permanent, we won’t see a resurgence in rental construction. The incentive isn’t there. Our long-term goal must be regional decontrols tied to vacancy rates, along with a municipal agreement.”

He is interested in regional decontrols of rent control. What ridings does he indicate? Not York South, not London Centre, but communities like Sarnia or Thunder Bay, with high vacancy rates, where he thinks rent controls are unnecessary now.

Mr. Jackson: The question raised has to do with the deception on the part of the Ministry of Housing with respect to providing full disclosure to tenants in Ontario under Bill 51. The minister has chosen not to answer a basic question, when her government, before she was elected, promised it would disclose this information to tenants. We are talking about people’s housing.

Given the fact that the minister has misstated facts as contained in her briefing book about the total impact of rent increases in Ontario for 1987 when she states that rents will go up in the city of Toronto by less than 4.5 per cent, which was her statement yesterday, the fact is that we have documented evidence that there are --

Mr. Speaker: The question, please.

Mr. Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, you are most helpful.

Given that her ministry has suppressed information about the total number of units under rent review in the city of Toronto, given that her ministry, once having given those awards, suppresses the amount of increases, will she now make it public to the media, to the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, which desperately wants this information, and to members of this House, so we can see how bad the picture is for rental housing increases in the city of Toronto?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I reject categorically the allegation that we are suppressing any information. The 4.5 per cent figure I used yesterday is a number released by the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp. about the average rent increase for two-bedroom apartments in the city of Toronto and Metro Toronto, between October 1986 and October 1987.

The awards issued that the member mentioned contain a series of sections. One section indicates the rent control guideline under which some of the award has been given. If he looks at that piece of paper, it also says how much of an award has been based on capital allocation, how much has been based on financial losses, how much has been based on the various categories under which either landlords or tenants make submission to the rent review commissioner.

The fact that there are several factors is reflected in the information sent to tenants and to landlords, so that tenants know on what basis their rent increase has been awarded and the maximum unit rent they are expected to pay.

TRADE WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Treasurer. The people of Ontario enjoy a publicly funded hospitalization and medical program. That is not shared by the citizens of the United States. It has been brought to my attention by a number of constituents that, in the event the free trade deal does go through, they fear for the Ontario health insurance plan program we have.

They have been advised that some of the industries in the United States pay for part of the premiums for their employees and some pay for all of the premiums of their employees. They say if it is a level field for trade, we have an advantage with our industries which are in competition with their industries. They feel this is unfair and our program for hospitalization is in jeopardy.

I ask for some reassurance from this government that our hospitalization program is not in jeopardy and that we will see it through, no matter what the objections of the United States, if the trade deal does go through.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I cannot think of any circumstances that would jeopardize our national and provincial system of medical and health insurance. I believe it is true that our system is far superior to anything that is experienced in the United States of America and I think many people down there wish they had a system like ours. The idea that we would have to be taken down to that low common denominator for some sort of free trade arrangement is unacceptable now and will be in the future.

Mr. Owen: The federal government has the authority to deal with the issue of trade negotiations with other countries, but this government has the authority to deal with health. Hopefully, the people of Canada will have the opportunity to vote and decide whether they want the free trade deal. But should it be accepted and proceeded with and it becomes a shootout between the authority of the federal government and the authority of this provincial government, who is going to win in the shootout and have we received any advice from our ministry officials as to how strong our position is to protect our interests as opposed to what the federal government feels is its obligation to carry it out?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: My political judgement, if that is something anybody is interested in, is that if any government in Canada or in the province were ever to suggest that our medicare services in this province, where it is known as OHIP, and elsewhere across the country would be interfered with in any way, that government would lose its authority immediately thereafter.

My own feeling is that we are fully committed to this program nationally and certainly in this province and are very proud of what it has provided. Contrary to what one might have read in the Toronto Sun this morning, this party still believes that it should be financed without premiums. In the long run, we feel this province should, in its financing measures, move in that direction.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. According to her own officials, 80 per cent of the rental buildings constructed since 1975 have received municipal approval as condominiums. In my own riding, this represents 47.9 per cent of the rental units that are available. At the present time, hundreds of tenants in my riding are being evicted as these units are sold as condominiums. This is happening elsewhere in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

What is the minister prepared to do to protect the rights of those tenants who are living in those buildings from being evicted on to the street?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The tenants who are living in units that are condominiums are protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act from eviction and that act is, of course, administered by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). They cannot be evicted unless that apartment has either been sold or someone is taking over that apartment for his own use, under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

Mr. Philip: It is astonishing that the minister is so poorly informed. There are up to 200,000 units where the building can be sold at any time as individual units because they are registered municipally as condominiums. That is the major rental housing stock that was built since 1975. The minister does not seem to know that she has her own act that could be revised, an act that is coming up for revision in June, the Rental Housing Protection Act, to protect tenants who have moved into buildings that were, in their opinion, rental buildings and who have lived in those buildings as long as seven years in one case.

Is the minister prepared to bring in the necessary amendments to guarantee that people who have lived in buildings they thought were rental buildings for years and years cannot be evicted simply because the unit is being sold as a condominium?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Indeed, the Rental Housing Protection Act of which the member speaks does come up for review right now. There will be a discussion paper issued and all the concerns he has raised will be part of it. We will be talking to all the people who are concerned about this and will try very hard to protect the interests of tenants, as we have with the current legislation. The reduction in conversion to condos in this city has been more than 85 per cent in Metro Toronto in the first year of the passage of that act, which is an indication that it has been reasonably --

Mr. Philip: This isn’t conversion. They are already condos.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Under the Rental Housing Protection Act and under its review we will undertake to look at that issue very closely and to make sure that tenants are protected.

1110

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Yesterday, the Minister of Housing disagreed with the figures that came out from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. with regard to two-bedroom apartments costing around $1,000 a month. The minister went on record as saying that the average rent of a two-bedroom apartment in Toronto and the Metro area is about $570 a month.

I did my own survey this morning in the way a person who is looking for a rental unit around Toronto would. I looked in the Globe and Mail and found 85 places that have two-bedroom rental units. The Toronto Star has quite a few more, and the Toronto Sun has some. There may be 500 two-bedroom apartment units in Metropolitan Toronto, and I could not find one unit at $570 or less per month.

Can the Minister of Housing tell the thousands of people in Toronto who are looking for those $570-a-month-or-less apartments, two bedrooms or so, where they go to look to find them?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: There is in the Metropolitan Toronto area a turnover of about 30 per cent of the apartments. Most of those apartments that turn over at the level that I have been describing turn over at a preferential rate and, in many cases, turn over to people who have been on waiting lists waiting for them.

The average rent that I talked about yesterday is there, but that, I know, is small comfort to the people who are doing what the member opposite did, which is looking in the newspaper for those apartments which are actually vacant. That is small comfort, and we know that.

That is the reason this government, unlike any previous government in this province, has been putting so many resources into the provision of affordable housing. This problem has not arisen overnight. It has been going on for quite a while. We are working very hard to make a difference, and that is the reason we put the resources we have into increased construction of affordable housing in this province.

Mr. Cousens: I challenge the Minister of Housing to find one rental-unit two-bedroom apartment in Metropolitan Toronto at $570 or less, because that is the kind of thing she is talking about. The vacancy rate, according to Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., in Metropolitan Toronto and area is 0.01 per cent. The vacancy rate of those apartments at $570 a month or less is virtually zero. There are none, and as the minister has already admitted, there are going to be thousands more people coming into Toronto with the new office towers opening up and the new industry expanding.

I therefore ask the minister, what is her target for the vacancy rate in Metropolitan Toronto for 1988?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I am surprised the honourable member opposite thinks that finding one apartment at $570 is going to help all the people in this province who need affordable housing and who are the people I am most concerned about.

I do not know to whom he has been talking, but I have been talking to the tenants in this area. I have been talking to people who have great difficulty finding affordable housing, and I am extremely concerned about the situation they are in. That is the reason I know the commitment we have made as a government is a very important one.

But I will not rest on that. I do not think that is enough. We will have to do more. That is the reason this government and this minister are committed to making sure we do more than we have already said we will do to make sure that people in the Toronto area can find a decent and affordable place in which to live.

I will not rest at finding one apartment. I will not rest until the people in this province have decent, affordable places in which to live and no longer worry about finding reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, a point of order --

Mr. Speaker: On what?

Mr. Cousens: The minister does not have any target to achieve any results this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member asked the question and the supplementary.

GREENACRES HOME FOR THE AGED

Mr. Beer: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding Metropolitan Toronto’s Greenacres Home for the Aged, located in Newmarket. There is continuing uncertainty and concern at Greenacres regarding the exact plans which Metropolitan Toronto has for withdrawing from this institution.

Can the minister tell the House what direction his ministry has given to Metro to develop a clear plan so that staff, residents and families of residents can understand what is going to happen and can plan for their future?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: About mid-December, I sent a letter to Mr. Wells in York region and Mr. Picherack in Metro Toronto region indicating that I wanted a clear plan for the two regions with respect to Greenacres. I have particularly asked Mr. Picherack to have Metropolitan Toronto’s plan available to me by the end of this month, because the employees of Greenacres are in fact employees of Metropolitan Toronto.

It is clear that the total number of residents currently at Greenacres will not be the same number that will be there in subsequent years, over the next three or four years, because we have indicated that only the west wing will continue to be used as a residential facility and it has a limit of approximately half of the current residency. Therefore, it is expected that Metro Toronto, which is the employer of the staff currently working at Greenacres, will have a plan available for itself, which it will share with us, share with York region and share with the staff, as to what opportunities for employment are going to be available to the staff people who will not stay at Greenacres.

Mr. Beer: As the minister knows, it is most unfortunate that York region is the only region that does not have a regional health council. I think the existence of such a council would have helped us a great deal in the planning with respect to Greenacres.

In his ministry’s discussions with York region regarding the future use of Greenacres, including the two wings, and in the discussions regarding the future plans for the region’s own York Manor Home for the Aged, will the minister ensure that this review includes an examination of both residential and nonresidential service requirements for seniors throughout York region, and will he also ensure that community groups, health care professionals, volunteers and others are included in that review?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We had a meeting with the elected members in York region and with their professional staff about nine months ago, trying to determine clearly from them what their long-term goals and plans were with respect to senior citizens’ services.

Their present manor in the north end of the region is simply not going to be adequate for all of their future needs. We have indicated that we are prepared to work with them to renovate that manor, to develop a new service in the southern end of the region and to incorporate the existing Greenacres, or at least the west wing of Greenacres, as part of that overall plan. There will be part of Greenacres buildings still left that could possibly be used for other purposes; that has not been determined yet. But what we are asking York region to do is to consider it as part of the overall plan, particularly for seniors’ services and perhaps for other services as well, so that both the north and south ends of the region will be able to meet the needs of their senior citizens.

ROLE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Premier. A perusal of the disclosure statements would indicate that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) has substantial interests in construction and development companies. The Occupational Health and Safety Act exempts construction sites from mandatory health and safety committees and only two of the major sites in the province, SkyDome and Scotia Plaza, have such committees.

Does the Premier not feel that the minister has a substantial area of conflict in this particular area?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: No, I do not.

Mr. Mackenzie: I then say to the Premier that this is one of the most important issues facing the province, the health and safety committees. Construction workers have been fighting hard, and so far unsuccessfully, to obtain by legislation mandatory health and safety committees on work sites. The construction industry has almost unanimously opposed this and tried to maintain the status quo. Surely the Minister of Labour, either in his ministry or in cabinet, has a conflict in this particular issue. What is the Premier prepared to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not agree with the honourable member and neither does the commissioner.

1120

ABORTION SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. It is perhaps appropriate that we are meeting this morning, as resolution 11 was supposed to be debated in the Legislature this morning. The resolution of the government member for Nepean (Mr. Daigeler) reads:

“That, in the opinion of this House, the members of the committees reviewing abortion applications to be performed in or through the recently announced women’s clinics be chosen from the community itself in which these facilities are located and that these committees be required to substantiate in writing the facts of each case and why they warrant an abortion in conformity with the prescriptions of the federal legislation.”

Does the minister agree with this resolution?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me respond to the member in this way and give him the information which will help him in his confusion on this matter, and that is that the federal legislation requires that a therapeutic abortion committee of medical practitioners determine whether or not a therapeutic abortion is warranted.

Mr. Eves: As I expected, the minister totally circumvented the question that was asked. We want to know --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Are you voting for or against this?

Mr. Eves: You will find out when I speak on the resolution, if you ever bother to bring it forward.

Will the minister tell the House and the people of Ontario where she and her government stand on this issue, and will she today dissociate herself from the political posturing of her member opposite?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Both my position and the position of the government on this very sensitive issue are clear, and that is that we support the federal legislation and we have moved to ensure access for the women of Ontario to needed therapeutic abortions in accordance with that legislation.

Mr. Daigeler: I am very thankful to the member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) for his interest in my motion.

HOMEMAKER PENSIONS

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. I was pleased to hear the minister mention yesterday in this House that an ad hoc group associated with the provincial treasurers and the Minister of Finance is presently looking at the possibility of homemaker pensions. As the minister knows, I am very interested in the subject. I have recently received a very useful report on pensions for homemakers, prepared at my request by the legislative library. According to this paper, the results of the federal-provincial discussions should be available soon or have already been communicated to the minister.

Can the minister share with this House any information he has on where the committee is in its deliberations, and can he elaborate for the benefit of the new members on his own position with regard to homemaker pensions?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The ad hoc committee that is to advise the treasurers meeting with the Minister of Finance meets three or four times a year. As I recall, it was at the December 1985 meeting that the matter of homemakers’ pensions was raised, I believe by myself in conjunction with the other treasurers. Rather than make any sort of statement from that group, it was decided that a special group of officials would look at the ramifications as far as their impact on Canada pension plan financing would be set up.

We have not had a report from that group as yet, but since it was established in 1985, I presume that its review must be near completion and, as treasurers, we would be provided with the information of the impact on the Canada pension plan.

Mr. Daigeler: While I appreciate the fact that the treasurers are looking at this question, I would also be very interested to hear how the Ontario Treasurer is looking at that question, whether we can count on his support for this question or whether he sees any particular difficulties with this matter.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I see lots of financial difficulties, but I should be able to tell the honourable member that at the discussions among the treasurers, speaking as Treasurer of Ontario, I spoke positively, in favour of it, and it was partially at my behest that this further review has been going forward.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Premier. The Premier will recall that in early October his newly appointed Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) expressed in a media interview serious concerns about Ontario Hydro’s debt and the operation of its financial structure. A few weeks ago, in response to a question by me, the minister stated that he no longer had those same concerns about the Hydro debt and the financial structure because of a brief meeting he had had with Hydro officials.

The Premier will be aware that Hydro has now announced it is going to have to write off $100 million of investment in a West Virginia coal mine and that it will have to recover that write-off by the purchase of low-cost, high-sulphur US coal over the course of the next five years.

Does the Premier find that an acceptable solution to this bad investment by Ontario Hydro and, specifically, can the Premier tell us what his government intends to do about its long-touted moves to take control of Ontario Hydro and its financial structure?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Ontario Hydro, being a crown corporation and independent, I assume made an independent business judgement with respect to the write-off of the West Virginia coal mine. I read about it, as my honourable friend did, and I assume perhaps he is arguing they should keep it open. I have no idea. The member may have had some information.

Mr. Wildman: They should not have invested in it in the first place.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member can say they should not have invested in it; he may be right. We should not invest in a lot of things around here perhaps. I appreciate the honourable member’s advice on that matter.

With respect to the second question my honourable friend raises, the Power Corporation Act is currently under very active review and we expect -- I cannot be precise on this -- to be in a position, hopefully in the reasonably near future but, again, I cannot be precise, to present amendments to the Power Corporation Act for a thorough discussion of Hydro in this House and, of course, using a select committee as well.

Mr. Charlton: This investment and this write-off are just another reflection of Ontario Hydro’s serious problems in its long-term planning process. It is also a reflection of a bad investment in terms of sensitivity to the environmental concerns in Ontario for Hydro to have made this investment in the late 1970s in a high-sulphur-coal deposit.

The Premier has said on a number of occasions that Hydro is out of control and has to be brought under control. Last month Hydro tabled its demand-supply options study, a study which, when the decisions are made around that study, will carry us through the next 20 years in this province. The Premier and the minister have said that study will be referred to the select committee, which has already done that job once, a year and a half ago.

Will the Premier commit to this House today that that study, which could get us into the same kind of messes again over the course of the next 20 years, will be referred to full public hearings before the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Obviously, this province and Ontario Hydro are going to have to make some major decisions about the future over the period of the next few years. Obviously, we would want to get the widest possible advice in having those discussions.

It seems to me that a select committee of this House is as public a forum as one could have. It has the ability to call witnesses, bring people in and have public hearings. Obviously, we want the advice of the public at large as well as the experts in these matters.

I am certainly willing to consider various options that people have, but it seems to me that a select committee is, in a sense, the most democratic forum possible to discuss these things.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr. Jackson: In the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward), I have a question for the Premier. It concerns the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which came into effect on January 1, 1988.

I have in my possession a document from Bernard Shapiro, the Deputy Minister of Education, to all school boards in Ontario. The memorandum is dated November 5, 1987, and it tells school boards that at the age of 16, the consent of a student in Ontario is required for access to his personal information, which includes his truancy record, his report card and other sensitive matters. It cannot be given to his parents unless they have the permission of the student. This means that parents will need their child’s permission in order to have access to this delicate information.

Will the Premier agree to amend this piece of legislation so that parents will have access to their child’s academic record and have access to their child’s truancy record, so that they do not discover after two months that their child has not been going to school and other sensitive matters that are important to their attendance for 16- and 17-year-old children in this province? Will the Premier amend the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can take it up with the minister, but I cannot give the honourable member any guarantees.

1130

PETITION

THERAPY FOR ABUSED CHILDREN

Mr. M. C. Ray: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly, again another calling upon the government to legislate as mandatory present discretionary programs for child abuse treatment which are offered and funded by children’s aid societies. It is signed by 250 residents of the city of Windsor in the county of Essex.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 94, An Act to prohibit Discrimination by Municipalities against Unrelated Persons Occupying Residential Property.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: This bill, in both official languages, is designed to ensure that related and unrelated persons who occupy residential property will be treated equally under municipal zoning bylaws. The bill will, among other things, operate retroactively to eliminate exclusionary bylaws now in force in at least six university cities in Ontario.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Speaker: I am advised we are in the process of comments and questions having been asked by the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope). Under the circumstances, I will ask if there is any further debate.

Mr. Reville: A number of members of my caucus have already spoken in support of the concept of direct elections in Metro and clearly we are delighted to see this bill come forward and think that it should be dealt with expeditiously in committee so the legislation can be passed, I hope, during the week of February 8, so the people who are interested in municipal politics can plan their futures.

We do urge, however, that when the minister is reviewing the boundaries that the municipal councils have drawn for themselves, pursuant to the legislation, and as the minister will know that exercise is under way currently --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member’s train of thought. However, there are a number of private conversations that make it difficult to hear what is being said. Thank you.

Mr. Reville: As I was saying, and to try to retrieve my train of thought -- sometimes it looks like strain of thought -- municipal politicians are currently looking at what kinds of boundaries they should have in order to comply with the legislation.

If I can get the attention of the minister, I want to make sure particularly that he hears what I have to say next. Under the legislation, I understand the minister will approve the boundaries, at least until after the 1988 municipal elections, at which time a municipal board hearing could review boundaries that are in question.

When the minister is reviewing the boundaries that are submitted to him by municipal councils, will he keep in mind these few criteria: That there be an equal number of wards per Metro boundary. For example, in the city of Toronto, there are going to be eight Metro wards; therefore, the number of people who run within those Metro wards to sit on city council should be equal. That would be two in the case of the city of Toronto and in the city of North York. I understand it is three in the city of Etobicoke.

Clearly, the minister will be aware of the danger of approving any strip wards. The province had trouble for many years with long, skinny wards. I think the minister will agree that strip wards are to be avoided in approving municipal boundaries. The other obvious criterion is that there be no wide variance in the number of electors per ward.

I think the matter has had a full and frank discussion already in the Legislature. I just wanted to bring up those few criteria and commend them to the minister. I hope he will apply them as he reviews the boundaries. May I say in closing that we are still very eager to see what we believe is the companion piece of legislation that deals with the question of election finances at the municipal level. We look forward to the minister tabling that legislation in the very near future.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I appreciate very much the comments of my colleague with regard to the boundary proposals. I want to report to the members that all area municipalities are currently working on proposals for the establishment of the Metro wards and, where necessary, adjusting those local wards. Public meetings are being planned for this month in, I believe, all the municipalities.

In the city of Toronto, a special committee was established. Advertisements for public meetings will be run this week and the school board is being consulted. Similarly, in the city of Scarborough, the mayor and council have written to indicate they have no problem with the timing of the bill or the ward distribution. In the city of York, a special committee composed of representatives from ratepayers’ groups, business groups and two members of council was formed. School board representatives were invited to attend the next meeting of the special committee.

In the city of North York, council established a committee to deal with the issue there. Public hearings of council will be held on January 25. The North York council is determined there will be no changes to the numbers and boundaries of existing local wards. In the city of Etobicoke, the staff have developed a proposal under which the boundaries of the four provincial ridings would be used to define the Metro wards. Three local councillors for each ward would be elected. In East York, the borough of East York is one Metro ward and a reduction in local council size may be considered.

To my colleagues and my critics, I want to say things are moving ahead well in regard to direct election to Metro council. I suppose my only disappointment is that this bill is going to be held up in going to committee; but in spite of that, anyone who wants input can appear before that committee and we will welcome the input. Following that, I look forward to receiving the full support of the House in order that this might pass and be in place for the elections this year.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for standing committee on general government.

1140

MINISTRY OF COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. McLeod moved second reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I have introduced for second reading an amendment to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act. This amendment affects subsection 8(1) of the act and proposes to delete the words “in Ontario” from line 8 of this subsection. This will allow extension of Ontario student loans to Ontario residents studying outside the province.

An allocation of $500,000 has been approved to service loans issued to students studying outside the province. This figure has been included in the total budget for the 1987-88 Ontario student assistance program.

At present, student loans may be guaranteed only to students enrolled in Ontario colleges and universities, whereas Ontario study grants are portable outside the province. This amendment will remove this discrepancy, to the benefit of many students. It also makes Ontario’s system more consistent with other provincial assistance programs. The change will increase accessibility for more students to financial assistance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Our party will be supporting the amendment to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act which will allow for this extension of Ontario student loans, but I do want to make a few comments about the proposal itself and the context within which one should view this.

We have a system of student loans which has been revised from time to time over the years but which is still discriminatory, in my view, anachronistic in many ways and does not meet the needs of students trying to attend the university system.

I think all one has to do is to look at who goes to university and who has access to our post-secondary institutions today to understand how exclusive those institutions still are in general in terms of who goes and who cannot go. It is very unusual for working-class families and poor families in the province of Ontario to have children who can attend post-secondary institutions.

When one looks at the reasons for this, there are many that one should not just dismiss out of hand in terms of the many problems around poverty and low income that make it difficult for people to make those kinds of decisions: whether it is the fact that from a very early age many of these kids work and spend most of their time outside of the classroom; whether it is the various pressures that are on them to appear like middle-class kids when they cannot, during the secondary level of education, and they are then among the highest dropouts within the system; or many other factors to do with health, nutrition, etc.

However, one cannot ignore the fact that one of the primary reasons for lack of attendance is their monetary capacity to do so, and one of the reasons for that is the way the Ontario student loan system has been structured over the years.

I would hope that instead of just coming forward with this very minor adjustment to the Ontario student loan approach, this Liberal reform government would finally revamp entirely the Ontario student loan assistance program in ways that will make it much more permissive in terms of people’s ability to attend.

I have written to the minister on a couple of occasions already about some of the strange anachronisms. For instance, a couple who just got married were helped to gain a house by their parents with a very small down payment for it. The house is worth about $100,000, but the bank owns $99,000 of it. But the ministry determines that they have assets of $100,000 and therefore are not eligible for student loans. They could instead be off in their apartment someplace paying $1,000 a month rent and would be eligible for a student loan, even though any bank in the province of Ontario would tell them that their asset is more like $4,000 or $5,000, not the $100,000 total that the student loan program in Ontario has.

This is just one particular example that comes to mind, because I received a letter from the minister or from her minions on it the other day indicating that there was no likelihood of any change in policy to understand that just because you happen to have chosen the route of trying to own a home and pay a mortgage, you should not be penalized in terms of your attempt to get student loans.

Interjection.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am being interrupted by the member for Yorkview (Mr. Polsinelli). I am sure he would like to say something.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): I assume the member for Scarborough West will forgive the member for Yorkview. He will have time for comments and questions as soon as you have completed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Thank you. There are any number of things that are wrong with the system, many larger than this whole question of what are assets or not assets. I want to make a few comments about education these days, at the university level specifically, and why this change to enlarge the student loan application is a good thing.

The first would be that I think there is a real trend in university education these days for people to go to a university close to where they live and for regionalization of higher education to be a major factor. I think of places like Trent University, Brock University and Laurentian University. If we look at their student profiles, we notice that the vast majority of the students attending those institutions come from the areas immediately surrounding the universities. There is a sort of catchment approach, such as they have for hospitals or whatever.

When we think of that in terms of what one hopes will come out of a university education and the fact that we have a number of universities which offer very different kinds of approaches to courses and emphases on various kinds of programs around Ontario and around the country, this is an opportunity for an opening of the mind, a time to move away from the home, to move into full adulthood, to exercise the brain and to learn how to think in ways which will be helpful to our society in the future. It seems to me that an action which makes it easier for students to be able to travel to other parts of the country to study is a good thing and one we should be pleased to have, to see and to finally recognize in terms of the loans component of the Ontario student loan plan.

For that reason, I am very pleased to think that this will facilitate kids from eastern Ontario to go to Quebec to school or people in northwestern Ontario to go to Manitoba, or whatever kinds of options might be available. But I also hope it will make it possible for a student from Toronto to be able to go to the University of British Columbia and that it is not just going to be something which is in a neighbouring jurisdiction as a sort of slight extension of the catchment area.

One thing I find interesting, and I would love to hear comment from the minister, is just how this affects the student who is leaving the country and wants to get a student loan. We already have over 15,000 students studying in American institutions at this point. Is this something which is going to be increased because they are now going to have a capacity to get student loans to be able to go to American institutions, or is this something which is going to be available only to students going to other institutions within Canada?

I am sure the minister has now had time to find the report which was kept from her by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Kwinter), which I am sure he did not mean to do. Since her ministry, the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Skills Development have all been involved in the promotion of this look at the effects of free trade on higher education, I wonder if the minister has thought at all about what the implications of bringing in this kind of amendment at this time may be in terms of the free trade deal.

Is this something which in fact is going to foster the exportation of more of our students to the United States for their studies? Is it going to be something which again is going to add another level of difficulty to our Canadian and Ontario institutions competing with American institutions for our students? If this is the case, I am wondering if the minister has thought about what the ramifications of this might be.

Yesterday in the House I was raising the whole question of branch plants of American institutions, like the University of Niagara or the University of Central Michigan coming into Ontario and providing masters’ degrees -- and doctorates now as well, I gather -- to students who cannot get entrance into places like the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education or other institutions in the province to get the same kind of graduate course. There has been a proliferation of these programs over the last little while.

I am very concerned that perhaps what we have happening here, unwittingly, is an extension of support to students to move outside our jurisdictions, to look at more options and flexibility in provision of services than are provided here in Ontario, rather than looking at how we make our Ontario universities and post-secondary institutions more flexible and more able to deal with the kinds of educational needs being identified by community college teachers and high school teachers who want upgrading in Ontario but are not eligible for it under the present strictures in Ontario.

1150

I would say to the minister that we welcome the notion that there should be free trade amongst universities in Canada. That is a good thing. It is something we should move towards. But I wonder if, at the same time we are doing that, we are not now setting up a situation where we are going to be enhancing the likelihood of more students making a choice of moving to the United States for courses.

In that connection, I would ask the minister if this is not the case, if she does not feel this applies to American universities, could she make comments? Could she make some comments about how she thinks this kind of motion will be accepted by the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal? Is it going to be considered something which is discriminatory against institutions of higher learning in the United States and students who may wish to go to the United States as a result of that, because it does not speak specifically to their needs?

Has the minister done what I wanted her to do yesterday, to set up something which will be a challenge to the Mulroney-Reagan free trade deal, that is to say, “Yes, we think there should be free trade within Canada for students to be able to move to institutions around the country, but we do believe it is our choice as a province to decide we do not have to do that with a neighbouring state”?

I would be very interested to hear the minister’s comments in her response and wrapup about what the effects are going to be regarding the movement of students outside of Canada as well as within Canada.

Mr. Henderson: I value the insightful comments of the member for Scarborough West. I think there would be lots of agreement that economic and other material factors ought not to stand in the way of students who want to attend colleges and universities.

The fact that young Ontarians from working families are less likely to attend, or in fewer numbers, colleges and universities may be to some extent a question of economics and other material considerations. It is probably also to some extent a question of the kind of ethos and psychological rather than material support those young people sense from their families.

Probably most people would agree about that too. The question is, how much of each? I wonder if the member has thought about that. To what extent does he think that question of family ethos and sociocultural milieu and social reinforcement play a part? Has he any ideas as to what one ought to do about that?

Mr. Polsinelli: I would like to take this opportunity to respond to some of the things the member for Scarborough West was saying, particularly the example he was using.

While the member for Scarborough West generally makes eminent sense, in this particular example he has probably been led down the garden path, when he says officials at the Ontario student loan plan will look at a young couple which owns a $100,000 home and has only $1,000 of equity in that home as having a $100,000 asset.

I can speak from personal experience of not too many years ago when, as a young married man, I owned a townhouse condominium. I applied for an Ontario student loan to be able to attend university. I remember quite distinctly that part of the application was such that they asked what the approximate value of your home was, what you owed on your home, what your debts were, what your liabilities were, and then they took the net difference.

They do it similarly to a bank. They do look at the approximate value of your home, they do look at the liabilities you have on your home, and then the difference in that is what your assets are, what you are worth. That is what they take into consideration.

I say to the member for Scarborough West that unless they have changed the rules within the past three or four years, because that is how long ago I graduated from law school, there is nothing wrong with the system they were using then.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Just to respond to my friend from Yorkview, I will be glad to enlist his assistance, therefore, with the ministry with this particular case, to share the case with him and make him understand that perhaps things have changed or somehow he slipped under the net in the past. It is always remarkable to me how young some members of the Legislature must be these days to have graduated only three to four years ago. It is quite remarkable, I must say.

I would like to take a couple of minutes to comment to the member for Etobicoke-Humber (Mr. Henderson), if I might. Yes, I agree totally that there are many social and psychological impacts which are as strong as are the direct economic impacts on kids from working-class families going to higher education. I think these things start to show themselves in prekindergarten: a lack of attendance; the problems of families providing supports in an inner-city school to the kid as he is trying to learn in the public school system; and the streaming system that we have in Ontario, done at such an early age, also helps to reinforce this problem.

The solutions to it are not the kinds of things I can really talk to in the 48 seconds that are remaining, but I think they must refer to an awful lot of extra supports that must be provided to poorer-income families in inner-city areas especially, or wherever they may be, to assist them to understand the aspirations of their children and to try to be more open and more helpful in allowing them to move forward.

I would remind members that the members of the French Canadian community in Ontario attend post-secondary education institutions at about 40 per cent of the rate of the rest of us and that our native Ontarians attend almost not at all.

Mr. Jackson: It gives me great pleasure to rise and, on behalf of my party, give support to this bill. The Progressive Conservative caucus supports this legislation. We support the bill because it brings Ontario student loan practices with respect to students who study elsewhere in Canada into line with the practices of other provinces, such as British Columbia, Quebec and Alberta.

We support the legislation because it brings eligibility for Ontario student loans -- one part of the total Ontario student assistance program package -- into line with the other major components, namely, Canada student loans and the Ontario study grants, and we support this bill because it is consistent with the principle of mobility rights for all persons now enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But it would not be honest if I did not point out that there is a sense of disappointment, real disappointment, that greets this piece of legislation. Given the problems facing students in our province and given the problems which have plagued the OSAP system for many years, quite frankly, I am disappointed that this small bill is all that the minister has seen fit to bring before the House in her first term.

It cannot be said that there has been a great outcry for this piece of legislation. Indeed, in my role as the Education critic for the Progressive Conservative Party, I have heard a lot of complaints about the current OSAP system and I have listened to a lot of students with proposals for change, but this bill seems to ignore many of those concerns.

We are told by the ministry’s student awards branch, in a memorandum dated November 16, 1987, “The amendment is a clear and high priority.” Quite simply, it seems that the high priorities of this government are not the same as those of the students of Ontario. We endorse this bill, and we support its effect on our student assistance program, but Progressive Conservatives believe there are higher priorities.

The minister has met with the Ontario Federation of Students, which represents 200,000 students across the province. No doubt she listened to their concerns, but if this bill is all she has to offer after nearly four months in office, then clearly she is not willing to act on these concerns.

1200

What do students see as high priorities for OSAP? What are they saying? They have identified three major issues: their debt load, the OSAP formula and the grant eligibility periods. These are the greatest student concerns; these are their high priorities for OSAP, and the minister will know this after her meeting with the Ontario Federation of Students chairman, Sheena Weir. Yet this bill, which the ministry calls its high priority, addresses none of the three real and pressing priorities of the students of this province.

Debt loads continue to burden students once they graduate from post-secondary institutions. The average debt of a student graduating eight years ago was $1,500, three years ago that figure was $5,300, an increase of over 250 per cent. The Ontario Federation of Students estimates that by the time they graduate, students who start school this year will face an average debt burden of $12,800. Since this figure includes those students whose total debt is zero, many students will face debt loads which greatly exceed that figure. The government has extended the pay-back period from seven to 10 years for larger debts, but this still does not address the real problem.

Today this bill, the minister’s high priority, does not even address the serious repayment problems faced by our graduates. This bill makes it easier for an estimated 3,000 students to get deeper into debt, but offers no assistance in getting out of debt.

Likewise, this bill fails even to mention the very real and very great problems associated with the OSAP eligibility formula. Students have complained that the maximum allowable deduction of just over $100 per week in personal and living expenses is simply inadequate. They are correct: $100 a week is not even enough to pay for decent housing in any city in Ontario. Remember that students in cities such as Waterloo, Mississauga, Sudbury, London, Kingston and Guelph face exclusionary bylaws which prevent them from sharing space to cut expenses.

All three parties told the OFS during the recent election campaign that they opposed these exclusionary bylaws, but to date there has been no action. Students at the University of Western Ontario last month paid tens of thousands of dollars to challenge London’s city bylaw before the Ontario Municipal Board. They could have saved themselves the cost had this government, with its 95 seats, decided to act on its campaign commitment and honour its promise.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) could have spoken to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) on behalf of the students of the province. She could have asked him to introduce amendments to the Planning Act in order to prohibit exclusionary bylaws; yet she did not. All she has done is to introduce this high priority but tiny bill.

The minister, together with her colleagues the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, could have decided to issue a policy statement under section 3 of the Planning Act, a statement against exclusionary bylaws. The act would then force all municipalities to have regard to the statement whenever they pass a new bylaw.

By issuing such a policy statement, a simple statement like that, this government could have lived up to its election commitment to students who want to share accommodation to reduce their costs. Instead, nothing. Is it any wonder, then, that $106 per week is not enough to cover personal and living expenses, given the student housing crisis, about which the Liberal government is neglecting to do anything? OSAP quite clearly underestimates the costs which students face and then calculates their grants and loans accordingly.

The Liberals have also failed to deal adequately with the inequity which results when the OSAP formula for parental contributions is applied to farm families. For years students and MPPs from rural Ontario have complained that OSAP’s consideration of farm assets unrealistically inflates the estimated amount which farm parents can contribute to the post-secondary education of their children.

In fact, on April 16, 1985, in a statement entitled A New Deal for Ontario Farmers: Ontario Liberal Party Agricultural Policy, the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier (Mr. Peterson), released a 22-point program. Point 21 read as follows: “Change the present system under the Ontario student awards program to fairly reflect the real ability of farm parents to contribute to their children’s post-secondary education.”

The minister’s response has been to treat farm assets at only half their value with a proviso that this would apply only when 95 per cent of the assets were tied up in the farm business. That is a step in the right direction, but it is still not enough to improve access for these students. As my colleague the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) will be able to tell members, farm families in this province will not be satisfied until income is the only factor and farm assets are not taken into account at all.

Still dealing with the eligibility question under the Ontario student assistance program, we should note that the graduate students still do not qualify for the Ontario study grant component of OSAP. Grants may only be given for eight terms of study, which is generally considered to be four years in length. Since most graduate students are in at least their fifth year of post-secondary study, they do not qualify for these grants.

Dealing with this issue could have been a step forward for the new minister, yet she has chosen to take this bill and make it her high priority. I am confused by the logic of making this bill her major effort. It seems likely that it will be graduate students who will be those most likely to benefit from this bill. After all, graduate students, having reached a certain level of specialization, often find that there is only one university in all of Canada which can possibly accommodate all their needs.

If the minister really wanted to deal with the special needs of graduate students, she should have and she easily could have extended the grant eligibility periods. If the government wants to do something for graduate students, it should extend the grant eligibility period beyond eight terms. That step, and not this little bill, would be a real step for the graduate students of Ontario.

These three issues of greatest concern to students -- debt load, OSAP eligibility formula and the eight-term grant eligibility period -- have not been addressed by this bill. Instead of really attacking the problems with the OSAP system, instead of making real changes that would amount to a serious benefit to our students, the new minister has chosen but to fine-tune or adjust this one element of the program.

Not only does this bill fail to address the concerns of students, we must not forget that the Provincial Auditor also has grave concerns about the manner in which the OSAP system functions. The auditor noted on page 46 of his report, “The estimated income of students reported on application forms was generally not verified by the ministry.” One would think the ministry would have automatically checked every application against the student’s income tax return, but this verification, until the auditor’s report, was done only on a test basis. Even now, only independent students will have their applications checked against their income tax returns. That is simply not good enough.

The auditor also has choice words for the carelessness with which this government deals with the market values of parents’ houses, as reported on application forms. These comments are contained on pages 46 and 47 and are worth quoting:

“The market value of houses reported on application forms was generally not verified by the ministry. To test the reasonableness of such information, we compared a sample of market values reported to average prices of houses sold on the same street around the same time as the date of the application form. Our test indicated that market values were understated in about 70 per cent of the applications reviewed.

“Findings of particular interest were: Market values of houses on many applications were understated by at least $100,000. Two applications had market values of houses in Metropolitan Toronto at less than $6,000, while houses on the same streets sold for more than $120,000 The market value of one house was stated as $30,000; four months prior to the application date the house had been purchased for approximately $130,000.”

This report goes on and on. My point here very simply, is that if the ministry really wants to improve the OSAP system, there are many more important places to begin. The minister should listen to what students are saying. She should read the Provincial Auditor’s report on the 100-odd problems with the OSAP system. This new minister has addressed with this bill not a single one of those problems I have just raised.

In a way, I have a certain sympathy for the new Minister of Colleges and Universities. After all, a lot of things are outside of her control. Her colleague the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) never told her that he was sending up to 26,000 older laid-off workers who will be participants, they say, in the Transitions program to apply for OSAP, so that these unemployed workers, 45 years of age and up, can have some sort of income support while they are on a retraining program.

1210

Her colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) tightened the purse-strings so that she was forced to announce transfer payments for 1988-89 that were completely inadequate to meet the needs of our colleges and universities, a view concurred in by groups as diverse as the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, the Council of Ontario Universities and the Ontario Federation of Students.

We realize that the seating arrangements across the floor reveal the priorities of the Premier: Education and Housing are now in the third row, while the Ministry of Colleges and Universities ranks fourth-row seating. Despite this, despite the lack of co-operation and sensitivity from her cabinet colleagues, I urge the new minister to rise to the challenge facing post-secondary education and to effect real and positive changes to the system.

We will support her in this bill but we do so with the understanding that this government can and should be doing much more. It could be doing more to correct the many problems with the Ontario student assistance program. It could be doing more for students. It could be doing more to meet the financial needs of our post-secondary institutions.

We will support this tiny change to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act but we remind the minister and we remind this government that much, much more work remains to be done.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks of the member for Burlington South?

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a few comments particularly in the area where my colleague the member for Burlington South touched on farm youth. Many of our young people from farms want to go on to higher education and I run into many areas where they are not being granted the OSAP assistance I feel they should have.

My colleague touched on market values of homes being greatly underestimated. I suggest to the minister that the reverse is true in farming operations. In the last three years, we have had a reduction in market value of our farms in some areas in the order of over 50 per cent. Many of our farmers have not adjusted their bookkeeping and their thinking to that fact and are still reporting the market value of their farm properties as higher than the market could bear.

Some of our young people from a farming background come back home in early May, spend the summer on the family farm doing the work that has to be done, putting in the crops, putting in the hay, harvesting and what have you. They are probably working for a very small salary and the use of the family car. Because they are working for their parents, they are not eligible for the $1.25 subsidy from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. This is very, very unfair to the rural youth of Ontario.

I support Bill 58, but I ask the minister to look at the areas that affect our rural young people. They do need the same opportunities as our urban friends to obtain a good post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions? Does any member wish to participate in the debate? The minister may wish to wind up or wind down.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I appreciate the contributions the honourable members have made to the debate on this bill. I would like to recognize that although it is a relatively small amendment in essence, in many ways a housekeeping kind of change, it is a very high priority because there are expectations on the part of real students with real financial needs attending universities and colleges outside the province of Ontario to have some assistance. It is a priority for us because we are anxious to meet those expectations and to be able to provide that kind of assistance, so I would not apologize in any way for such a small amendment ranking as a priority for my ministry.

I recognize, however, that it is not solely through the legislative route that we are addressing the concerns of the Ontario student assistance program. The members will be quite well aware that in the most recent throne speech we made an announcement of some further $5 million in improvements to the Ontario student assistance program. We can improve and we have regularly been improving this plan through routes other than the legislative one. As we recognize this as a small amendment, we must also look at the great number of changes to the OSAP provisions that have been made.

Having said that -- and I recognize that the honourable members opposite have invited a very large-scale debate on a wide range of issues not all of them directly relevant to this particular bill, and I know that we will have an opportunity for debating those issues on many other occasions -- I do want to acknowledge the concerns that have been raised about the OSAP criteria. The OSAP criteria are continually under review. Aspects of those criteria are under review now and the ministry is diligently and continuously looking at the needs that are identified and attempting to meet those needs. I can assure members that we will continue to do so.

For clarification of this bill, I would simply like to point out that the purpose of this amendment is to remove the discrepancy between the Ontario student loans and the Ontario study grant plan. The Ontario study grant plan provides assistance to students at ministry-approved universities or colleges in Canada. There is certainly no way in which this particular amendment in any way undermines the Ontario post-secondary education system.

I do appreciate the contributions that have been made. I welcome further debate on different occasions about the Ontario student assistance program and I do appreciate support for this particular amendment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: As you know, there is no response allowed to a minister’s statement and I asked a very specific question around free trade and whether this affected students outside the country as well as inside the country. I did not get a direct answer to that. All I got was a statement that it would not affect the universities in the province. My only recourse now, if I want to get an answer is to move this darned thing into committee, which I do not wish to do.

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I thought I had indicated that in this amendment equalizing the loan plan with the grant plan, it is for students attending ministry-approved universities or colleges in Canada.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Kanter moved, on behalf of Hon. Mrs Smith, second reading of Bill 61, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Kanter: I am pleased to speak on second reading in support of this bill, on behalf of the Solicitor General in her absence. This bill is of particular interest to me as it affects the Metropolitan Toronto area, which I represent.

Bill 61 will increase the membership of the Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police from five to seven members. Four of the seven members will be appointed by Ontario and three by Metro. Two of the three Metro representatives will be appointed by Metro council from among its members, and the seventh will be the Metro chairman.

In considering this bill, I would like to speak briefly to both the reasons for expanding the Metro police commission and also to the reasons for maintaining a provincial majority on the police commission.

The Metro police commission, as members know, is the governing body of the Metro police force pursuant to section 17 of the Police Act. The commission is responsible for setting the general policy of the Metro police force, approving the force’s staffing, internal organization, budget, contracts and capital expenditures, hearing appeals from discipline hearings under the Police Act and hearing deputations from and keeping contact with the general community.

The main reason for recommending an increase in the membership of the Metro police commission is to allow it to cope with its increasing workload. The Metro police commission has over 7,000 employees and a budget of close to $400 million. The Metro police force is about six times larger than the next-largest municipal force in Ontario, the Peel Regional Police Force.

In recent years, as members may be aware, the Metro Toronto police force has been the focus of a number of reports and studies designed to make it more sensitive to changing community needs. Some of these reports, such as Cardinal Carter’s report on race relations and the late Arthur Maloney’s report on police complaints procedure, were authorized by the police commission. Other studies, such as the Hickling-Johnston report on police recruitment and the 1986 Metropolitan Toronto Police report on employment equity, were announced by the chief of police after extensive consultation with the commission.

1220

In every case it is the police commission which must study the report, accept or reject its recommendations and direct the force to implement new policies arising out of such reports.

As members are aware, there is much greater emphasis on community policing these days. An additional reason for larger membership on the Metro police commission is to allow and encourage the commissioners, most of whom are part-time, to get more involved in policy-related issues and with police community groups. Several have been established to assist policing in public housing projects and to help reduce violence against women and children in the Metro community. This is the kind of thing we want to encourage with a larger Metro police commission.

The third reason for the expansion of the Metro police commission involves the existence of the public complaints commissioner. As members are aware, this commissioner currently exists only for the Metro area. A bill was introduced by the Attorney General to enable that to be picked up on an optional basis by other communities as well.

The public complaints commissioner has made a number of recommendations to the Metro police commission concerning such issues as prisoner transport vehicles, officers’ confidential instructions to crown counsel and the questioning of young offenders. The board of commissioners must consider these recommendations and direct the force to implement those recommendations it believes will improve the force.

A further reason for expanding the Metro police commission is to better reflect the multicultural, multiracial community which Metro has become. A recent report from Statistics Canada indicates the tremendous magnitude of this change. As of the 1985 census, the percentage of the population of British origin in the Metro area -- and I am not just talking about downtown Toronto here, I am talking about an area beyond the boundaries of Metro Toronto towards Peel and Durham -- had declined to 27 per cent from 40 per cent only five years earlier. That means that approximately 73 per cent of the population of the Metro area is of non-British origin. That is a tremendous change, an unprecedented change, from earlier times.

Since we are proposing to expand the Metro police commission to include an additional provincial appointee, I think it is relevant to look at the kind of appointments this province, this provincial government, has made to the Metro police commission and other police commissions in the two and a half years since it has been in office.

The only member of the Metro police commission appointed by the current government is Roy Williams. He is the associate chairman of the school of business management at Ryerson and also the president of the Jamaican Canadian Association. His appointment demonstrates the concern of this government that we appoint people with relevant skills who also reflect Metro’s growing multicultural and multiracial population.

Women, while not a minority group, have also been severely underrepresented on police com-missions in this province. There are 77 police commissions in the province. The previous government appointed a relatively small number of women to police commissions. Only two of them are still sitting. In comparison, and I think this is a very dramatic contrast, 60 women have been appointed to Ontario’s police commissions by the current provincial government.

By the way, during that same period of time, when municipalities also had the opportunity to appoint women to police commissions, only five women were appointed. I think the record shows very clearly that provincial appointments to police commissions in Ontario have made a dramatic improvement in better representing the varied population of this province. Unfortunately, municipal appointments have not always been as sensitive to this changing population.

I would also note that Metro council itself, by resolution of December 9, 1986, agreed to the proposal embodied in Bill 61. Metro council agreed that expansion of the Metro police commission should be on the basis of one member from Metro and one provincial appointment.

Let me assure all members, including the members opposite, that I was a member of Metro council at the time and I supported that motion. I have gone back to check with the Metro clerk. There was no recorded vote. The motion was broadly supported by all sides of council; there was no intensive opposition. The procedure at Metro council, similar to the procedure in this House, is that a matter can be passed on a voice vote, and then there is no record of members opposing it. If there is, opposition members will invariably call for a recorded vote. There was no such recorded vote on that occasion.

I said I wanted to speak to two issues. I suspect there will probably be pretty broad consensus on the idea of expanding the police commission from five to seven members. The fact of Metro’s population and complexity and the size of our police force require more people to get involved. There may, however, be some questions about our decision, which is supported by Metro’s resolution, to continue the practice of the province appointing the majority of members to the police commission.

It is the view of this government that it is important that the province appoint a majority of the members to ensure fair and progressive law enforcement in accordance with provincial policy. This government, through the Solicitor General, is ultimately responsible for policing in this province. The current Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), on whose behalf I am speaking, has set out three priorities for policing in Ontario. They include a year-round, province-wide reduce impaired driving everywhere program; second, measures to ensure that police forces reflect and are sensitive to the multicultural, multiracial nature of the population of this province; and, third, initiatives to ensure greater sensitivity to and support for victims of crime, including the victims of domestic violence.

I think it is important that all police commissioners and all police commissions throughout the province be aware of these concerns and how they can be implemented in a way which is sensitive to local needs and resources. While municipalities do have responsibility under the Police Act for providing police services, members of the police force are not like other municipal employees. They are not employees or servants of a municipality; they are not even employees of the police board of commissioners. The police commission cannot make regulations inconsistent with those made by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. A board of police commissioners cannot lawfully give directions to any member of a police force describing the duties of his office. Police duties are of a public nature and they do not depend on the municipality or police force by which an officer has been appointed.

It has been suggested by some that Metro should appoint a majority of members of the police commission because it pays the majority of police costs. It is quite true that Metro pays a very substantial portion of police costs, 85 per cent or something along that amount, but this approach is totally inconsistent with provincial policy in many other fields, such as health or education. In many cases, the province pays more than 50 per cent of the cost of education or health in a local municipality. I would just throw in that we are actually looking for the province to pay perhaps a little more of the costs of public health in the Metro area. However, municipalities certainly would not accept provincial control in terms of majority representation of boards of education or boards of health just because the province provides more than 50 per cent of the funding for these services in some municipalities.

I have also suggested, and I think most members would accept the principle, that policing requires uniform standards throughout the province. Police are not, and should not be, municipal employees, as are staff of public works or parks departments.

The Metro Toronto Police have a distinguished record of service to the Metro community. The continuing success of the force will require sound policy direction from the board of police commissioners. Expansion of the board of police commissioners in the manner we have suggested will assist the force in coping with the increasing demands placed upon it by a rapidly changing Metropolitan Toronto.

1230

Mr. Hampton: I rise to speak on Bill 61, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Let me say at the outset that we will be introducing amendments to the act. I have given the previous speaker a copy of those amendments, and I want to go into some detail about those amendments and the reasons they are there. I also want to set out the philosophy which we believe should be embodied in the act as a whole. In doing that, I will be responding to the previous speaker.

The bill does amend the act by increasing the size of the board from five to seven members. According to the bill as presented, Metro will appoint one additional member and the province will appoint another. In effect, the province will still have the majority on the police commission.

Although the previous speaker tried to give some rationales for that, we take issue with those rationales, primarily because many of the issues that are dealt with by a police commission are issues that are very much of a local nature and should be dealt with by people who are aware of local situations, who are in touch with the local community and who are generally able and have a desire to respond to those issues and the kinds of questions that arise from the community.

What is the best way of ensuring that? As with a local board of education, the best way of ensuring that is to insist that the majority of the members on the police commission be people from the local community and from the Metropolitan area. The best way of ensuring that, as I have set out in the amendments I have proposed, is to ensure that Metropolitan council has the right to appoint a majority of the members.

It seems to me that if there is an issue in terms of ensuring some continuity across the province, that can be dealt with by the province having the right to appoint some of the members to the police commission. It does not have to have the power or the jurisdiction to appoint the majority of them. That again is reflected in the amendments we want to put forward. If Metropolitan council has the capacity to appoint the majority, then the local concerns, which are the most important concerns, will be looked after. If the province continues to have the power and the capacity to appoint some of the members, although not a majority, certainly there will be continuity in terms of administration of the police.

The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General made the point that somehow the province has been more sensitive than municipal councils and municipal authorities in terms of appointments to police commissions. The inference seems to be that municipal authorities somehow cannot be trusted to make appointments which are representative of the population of the community or respond to ethnic concerns or the concerns of minority groups. That seems to indicate almost a Big Brother attitude. It is certainly not an attitude we can call democratic or that could in any way be described as respectful of democracy.

If the province really wants to ensure that the concerns of the community are reflected, if it wants to ensure that appointees to the police commission are representative of the community, there are ways of doing that by amending the legislation. If you read the current act, very little is spelled out in terms of who is eligible to be appointed and there is very little in the way of indicating what sorts of things should be looked at.

In terms of the history of appointments to the board, the province’s appointees could be people with no previous connection with police work or any special knowledge of the justice system. The province’s appointments could be people who have not been involved in the administration of criminal law or people who are not familiar with the Police Act. The province’s appointments could even be, perish the thought, political hacks, and we know from past appointments under previous governments that this has too often been the case.

What is more, the appointing bodies under the legislation as it now stands can appoint commissioners for any term they choose. These are defects in the legislation. If the government is really concerned about ensuring that the police commission is representative of the community, it can do that in terms of amending the legislation rather than merely saying, “We have to have the majority because we are convinced that if we have the majority of the appointments, we will make the right appointments.” It seems to us that reasoning is not sound at all. The better way to proceed is by means of amending the act, tightening up the act and requiring municipal authorities to look at such questions as the representation of ethnic communities and the representation of minority groups in terms of the appointments Metro would make to the police commission.

It seems to us that if the Liberal government is to follow the commitments it has made previously to open government and to reform, it should start to advertise when vacancies occur on these commissions, and I refer specifically to this commission. It should seek suggestions from the public as to who would be the most suitable people to have a say in the operation of the largest municipal police force in the province. Many of these issues can be dealt with and laid out in the legislation.

I want to go back to the question of who should have the majority on the board and look at it a little more carefully. The parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General indicates that Metro council has approved the concept that the province should make the majority of the appointments.

It is our information, however, that there are a substantial number of people on Metro council who do not agree with that position, and who do take the position that Metro ought to be appointing the majority of the members to the commission.

1240

To go over again, it is our understanding that Metro council pays about 85 per cent of the costs of the Metropolitan Police Force. Under this, the proposed new legislation, they would have only about 43 per cent of the members. As we have said, that is very much a Big Brother attitude towards policing in the largest regional municipality in the province.

In the interests of democracy, and in the interests of staying in touch with the local concerns of the community, we strongly believe that Metro should appoint the majority of the members. We believe if that were the case, the day-to-day operations of the Metropolitan Police Force would be more in touch with the needs of the community.

Finally, I want to make these comments. The amendments that we intend to make are amendments which would give the Metropolitan council the capacity to appoint the majority of the members. For the reasons I have set out, we believe that will lead to a stronger and better Metropolitan Board of Commissioners of Police. I hope all members will consider those amendments and vote for them.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions of the member for Rainy River?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes. I think it is important that the things that have been put on the record by the member for Rainy River about Metro are so pertinent to Metro. As a Metro member, I would like to make a couple of comments.

I am specifically very pleased to see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert), an ex-Metro council member because of his position as controller, and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter) in his past experience as a Toronto councillor, involved with these issues about the importance of having Metro control the majority of appointees on the police commission.

I would find it very amusing indeed to hear these members argue against the fact that the piper who pays for the tune, to 85 per cent of the cost of policing in Toronto, should not control the majority of the appointments to the board.

The other thing I wanted to raise was something which has not been talked about a great deal in many years. That is the whole notion --

Mr. Speaker: As to the time, it might be some later time. I asked you if there were any comments or questions on the remarks made by the member for Rainy River.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: These were on the remarks by the member because he was talking about the local control. One of the things that is crucial about this is the whole notion of what the composition of a police board should be anyway. Should it be the small, elite group that meets, or should it be a group which is representative of the community itself, and have a large capacity to represent the community at large and in Toronto, in its truly cosmopolitan nature that it has?

One of the things that this government should be doing is looking at a total rethinking of how the police commissions worked and how we involve the various communities of Toronto in more of the decision-making around policing which will be policing back into real community control.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any comments or questions on the remarks made by the member for Rainy River?

Mr. Allen: I believe my remarks not only will be brief but will also comment directly upon the member’s proposals, notwithstanding the fact that they will arise from a Hamilton context rather than the Metropolitan Toronto context. But the member did refer to a question as to whether other municipalities would not find this an inconsistency across the province or whether the government was concerned about an inconsistency developing across the province.

I might say that for a number of years the municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth has sought this particular type of amendment for its own police commission and to date has had that request refused by previous governments. I suspect the government would find that most regional municipalities are in fact quite sympathetic towards this proposal that they should have at least an edge in the appointment of the numbers of members who sit on the commission.

Certainly our own region, as I say, has sought that for some time, and this government has shown some sympathy, at least with respect to improving the nature of local representation, at least in our area, to the point of allowing us to elect our own regional chairman. That suggests to me there is nothing inconsistent in moving on into other aspects, such as they are, in municipal government, where it is possible to improve local representation and local control, on balance, over those institutions in municipal government.

I would simply commend the remarks of my colleague to the House and suggest that the province as a whole, I am sure, will be very interested in seeing this develop.

Mr. Sterling: I would like to indicate that while we have some concerns about Bill 61, our caucus will support the bill in the final analysis. It is kind of like getting a half-loaf in terms of what is needed here in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto.

I think it is important to point out that this very same bill was brought forward in the Legislature in the last parliament as Bill 81 by the Solicitor General, and it was seen at that time by the Solicitor General that they were not going to get their own way, that in fact what was going to happen, with the combined efforts of the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, was that Metro Toronto was going to get the majority of the appointments on the police commission for Metropolitan Toronto.

The Liberal government at that time, not wishing to take the votes of the parliament of Ontario, withdrew that in a very arrogant fashion, hoping that it would get a majority parliament, which it has. Now they are going to introduce it in a fashion which neither the Progressive Conservative Party nor the New Democratic Party approves of.

So we had a situation where they introduced something in the Legislature, they did not get their own way, so they said: “We’ll pull this back; we won’t carry on with it. We’ll wait until we have a large majority, and then we can ram it down the throats of the people of Metropolitan Toronto.” That is what they are doing today.

Therefore, we are going to introduce an amendment to this legislation as well, and we will be moving it to the committee of the whole House. We believe there is a need for an expansion of the police commission from five to seven members, but we think the Metro council should have the majority of the appointments on that particular police commission.

1250

Mr. Kanter: Just briefly in terms of a response, I am pleased that members of all sides support the important principle, the thrust of increasing the size of the Metro police commission. I am very pleased to hear that.

With respect to some of the comments of the members opposite, the member for Rainy River raised some points which have some validity, for example, things like the standards for appointment and the knowledge of appointees. I think those are rather general points that could not be covered by specific amendment to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. I think he raised some interesting points on that issue. However, I would take issue with him on some of his analogies, for example, speaking of boards of education which are elected quite differently from police commissions.

I take exception with his observations on the state of mind of Metro council. I was there and my colleague the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere was there and it is our recollection that Metro council indeed endorsed this specific approach to change.

With respect to government appointments, l think the record of this government with respect to appointments to the Metro police commission, to other police commissions and indeed to other government agencies, boards and commissions speaks for itself. I can think of a former member of this House, Mr. McClellan from the former riding of Bellwoods. Certainly, there has been an attempt to ensure that people with good qualifications have been appointed to provincial and municipal agencies, boards and commissions regardless of political affiliation.

On the comments of the other members of the opposition party, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) called for a broader rethinking of how we involve community members in policing in Ontario. That is an ongoing process, but again, not something that can be dealt with appropriately in an amendment to this legislation, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

I appreciated the comments of the member for, I believe, Hamilton West (Mr. Allen), who understood our greater sensitivity to regional government and the needs of regional government. I would just reinforce that with the legislation that has been introduced by my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins). He is making Metro, as a whole, more responsive. He is ensuring that the Metro chairman who will be a member of the police commission is directly elected. He is ensuring that members of Metro council who will be members of the Metro police commission are directly elected. These are substantial changes and improvements, I believe, along the directions sought by the member.

I am pleased to hear that we are going to have support from the members of the third party.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 61, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

On section 1:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Hampton moves that clause 177(1)(b) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be amended by striking out the word “two” in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof the word “three.”

Mr. Sterling: We in this caucus will not be supporting this particular amendment, although we approve of a majority of the police commission being appointed by the Metropolitan council.

You will see from the amendment I have given to you, Madam Chairman, that we would like one of the additional appointments by Metropolitan council to be of a different nature than the other two members of Metropolitan council who would become members of the commission. We would like that final appointment by the Metro council to be a person who is not a member of council but is a lay person. Therefore, the commission would, in effect, still be controlled by lay people and not by elected people. However, the majority of the people who would be elected, including both the members of council and the lay people, would be appointed by Metropolitan council.

That is the reason we cannot support that particular amendment. I will have to consider my amendment at a later time.

Mr. Kanter: We will not be supporting the amendment put by the official opposition. As I indicated in my speech, I think it is important that there be some provincial uniformity. I think the province has indicated some new initiatives and approaches in the policing area, some very important initiatives in terms of policing in a multicultural, multiracial society.

I would reiterate that this bill is consistent with the policy that has also been approved and adopted by Metro council, that we continue to have majority provincial representation with, of course, strong municipal representation as well. Therefore, I repeat, we will not be supporting the amendment of the official opposition.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the “nays” have it.

Motion negatived.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member wish to make any other comments, questions or amendments to the bill?

Mr. Hampton: To that section?

The Deputy Chairman: To section 1.

Mr. Hampton: I did have a second amendment, but it makes sense only in combination with the first amendment. As the first amendment is lost, I will not be making the second amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any other member have any comments, questions or amendments to make with respect to section 1?

Mr. Sterling: Yes. I have an amendment.

1300

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Sterling moves that clauses 177(1)(b) and (c) of the act, as set out in section 1 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

“(b) two members of the Metropolitan council appointed by the Metropolitan council;

“(c) three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council; and

“(d) one person appointed by the Metropolitan council for a period of three years and who is not a member of Metropolitan council, the council of an area municipality or of any local board thereof.”

Mr. Sterling: This amendment, coupled with the existing clause 177(1)(a), which appoints the chairman of Metropolitan council to the police commission, leaves the composition of the police commission thus: the chairman of Metropolitan council would be one member: there would be two members from Metropolitan council, making three; and there would be one additional appointee by Metropolitan council who was not a member of council, which would make four appointed by Metropolitan council. In addition, there would be three persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, to make a total composition of seven members on the police commission.

It is my feeling that this would be a compromise for what is sought, in truth, by Metropolitan council, in spite of the remarks by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Kanter). Metropolitan council, to my understanding, has taken the bill put forward by the government of Ontario as its second choice in this whole matter. As I mentioned in my opening remarks on second reading, that was a matter of half a loaf rather than a full loaf. Therefore, I believe this amendment does meet the wishes of the Metropolitan council. It gives control to the people who are paying 85 per cent of the police commission and policing costs. It also meets the concerns of the police about the control of the police commission by politicians, and lay people can still control the overall workings of the commission.

Mrs. Grier: I regret that the members of the Conservative Party chose not to support the amendment moved by my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. Hampton), but I think the amendment moved by the member for Carleton has some merit and deserves some support. I intend to support it because it enshrines the principle that the majority of the members of this police commission will be appointed by Metro council, even though they are not elected members of Metro council.

I think the logic that was used by the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick, that just because the province did not appoint the majority of boards of health and boards of education, though it controlled the costs, it therefore did not follow that Metro should appoint the majority of the members of the Metropolitan Police Commission, is such a ridiculous exercise that it deserves to be opposed in every way possible, and I intend to register my opposition by supporting the amendment that is before us at the moment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I too regret the fact that the Conservative Party did not agree to our amendment, but I would like to speak positively about this amendment and then say why I will not support it.

Essentially, I think what is positive about it is that majority control is given to Metro Toronto council, which is an important principle to which we spoke and why we moved our motion the way we did. What is not clear, however, is the question of the role and the accountability of the appointed layperson. As I was trying to say to the parliamentary assistant in my remarks on second reading, my concern is that we eventually come up with a system whereby there is more community control and more representative participation on the commissions, but one cannot establish that in an ad hoc way that does not have accountability.

The individual who would be a tie-breaker in the circumstances raised by the member for Carleton is somebody to whom there is no specific direct accountability. The council would be accountable for decisions he or she might make because of the fact that it made the appointment, but that is, at best, a secondhand kind of control over that person and really does nothing to provide the direct accountability that we would have had with our amendment. Therefore, I will not be supporting it.

Mr. Kanter: I appreciate the consistent approach being taken by members of the third party. I am rather intrigued by the split in the official opposition. It seems that one of the members, I believe the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier), is going to support the amendment because she is angry at me, and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) supports the principle but is going to oppose the amendment. I am really having some difficulty understanding the intellectual process that is happening in the official opposition.

I have some problems with the amendment, although I can see where the member is coming from: this sort of mythical idea of a citizen who is somehow going to be free of any political entanglement, this mythical citizen who is going to be appointed by Metro council. My experience in a former position as a member of that council is that these independent citizens frequently turn out to be former members of that council or friends of current members of that council or that kind of thing, but I am not intending to get into a discussion of municipal patronage at this time.

I have some concerns with the Conservative amendment. First, it represents a rather unusual approach to municipal autonomy. They are saying, “Let Metro make the appointment, but do not let it make it from a certain group of people who are certainly members of the Metro community.” That is rather an unusual approach to Metro autonomy. It is also inconsistent with Metro’s policy of choosing members of council for agencies, boards and commissions. There has been an emerging and increasing feeling that members, for reasons of accountability, should choose members of council rather than citizens.

I would reaffirm the fact that the legislation which has been introduced by this government is going to strengthen the accountability of the Metro police commission because of the fact that the Metro chairman is going to be appointed and the other members of Metro council are going to be directly elected for the first time, a substantial change from the old regime.

Finally, I would like to say there have been some hints and suggestions, I guess, during this debate by members of both parties opposite that I think go to some deeper matters in the question of policing in Ontario. I think they go to the important issue of the balance between the independence of the police and political accountability. I do not think this question is going to be solved by juggling the responsibility for appointments to the Metro police commission. I think these questions go far beyond whether the province appoints a majority or the municipality appoints a majority. I think they relate to broader issues of community involvement in policing, standards of policing, the procedures followed by the police commission, the relationship of the police commission with the chief, the Solicitor General and the Ontario Police Commission, and those kinds of things.

I think those kinds of issues, which are very important issues that have been raised by members opposite, cannot be considered through an amendment to this bill that affects only the municipality of Metro Toronto. They are important issues and should be dealt with. They should probably be dealt with, in most cases, by amendments to the Police Act. I want to assure all members opposite that a complete review of the Police Act is being undertaken and is being accelerated under the current Solicitor General.

I think it is important that we adopt Bill 61 without the Conservative amendment; that is, that we oppose the Conservative amendment but not preclude a broader examination of some of the issues raised by the member for Carleton, the member for Scarborough West and, indeed, all of the members opposite.

1310

Mr. Sterling: I am somewhat amused by the parliamentary assistant’s response to the amendment. I would have thought that perhaps he would have listened to his first words when he spoke on this bill, when he was talking about the uniqueness of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, in that it is six times as large as any other municipal police force in Ontario and is probably about equal to the size of the Ontario Provincial Police Force.

Therefore, I think we can consider different rules for this particular police force, as we are today in Bill 61 because we are increasing the number of commissioners from five to seven, whereas every other municipal police force that chooses to have a commission in Ontario has either five or three members. None has seven and, after this bill receives royal assent, we will have a commission with seven members, in fact.

The argument by my friend the member for Scarborough West, who argues about the fact that he wanted political accountability with regard to the additional police commissioner appointed by Metropolitan council, may hold some water. However, he neglects to look at the fact that the bill in its present form appoints four lay people as it now stands. I would have thought that the introduction of a progressive, innovative amendment such as this would have not only received the support of the members of the opposition who indicated their support during the last Parliament, but also it would have been considered seriously by the opposite side.

However, I think we are going to have to become accustomed to this. We are, after all, overshadowed by 94 members to 35 members in total opposition. The fact of the matter is, l do not think it matters what kind of amendment we come up with over here, how progressive or how soft that amendment is or how easy it would be for this government to accept a progressive amendment such as that. I do not think it is going to be accepted over the next four years. What we are going to see is the heavy-handed arrogance of a large majority government that would not deal with this in a fair manner when it had to put its case forward, when it had to negotiate as this bill was brought forward in the last parliament.

What we are seeing today is a start of a march towards a heavy-handed practice by this government, where it is going to say: “Here is the bill, boys, take it or leave it. We are going to ram it through. We do not want to have good thought. We do not want to send these matters out to committee. We do not want to make amendments to the Meech Lake accord. We do not want to hear your arguments before we have the vote on the resolution on free trade.” This is just another example of that and this is such a small, little amendment to this particular bill that they could accept it in some kind of graciousness before we adjourn this afternoon.

Therefore. I am very much disappointed in the whole attitude and the arrogance of this particular government on this matter.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed say “nay.”

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill ordered to be reported.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This important legislation warrants at least 20 minutes of introductory remarks, but the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) here tells me he has a stopwatch on me, so I will be concise and I will try to give members the principles of the bill in about five minutes.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food Statute Law Amendment Act amends three pieces of legislation: the Farm Products Marketing Act, the Milk Act and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Act. The aim of these amendments is to improve farm products marketing legislation and thereby improve the efficiency and effectiveness of administering the three acts that l have mentioned.

Specifically, these changes will create one supervisory body where there are now two to administer the Farm Products Marketing Act and the Milk Act. This new organization is to be known as the Ontario Farm Products Marketing Commission. It would consist of producers, processors and consumers as well as civil servants. The commission would replace the Farm Products Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario.

The amendments will also permit terms and conditions and penalties to be applied to licences by marketing boards. A producer, for example, could be penalized for contravening the terms of a licence. The penalty could be as much as 10 per cent of the price payable to the producer for the regulated product marketed during the preceding 12 months. Likewise, processors could also be penalized.

These enhanced licensing powers for marketing boards have been incorporated in these changes at the request of the Ontario Vegetable Growers’ Marketing Board. The amendments would also enable marketing boards to charge interest on licence fees owing and increase the fine levels for both processors and producers for contravening the act or regulations. Fines will be increased from $500 to $2,000 a day for a first offence and for a second offence from $5,000 to $10,000 a day.

Other changes affect the Farm Products Appeal Tribunal and are designed to improve the way in which the tribunal can handle appeals to marketing board decisions. These changes are as follows:

The time limit for a producer to register an appeal has been reduced from two years to one year.

An appeal would be permitted to proceed directly to the tribunal where the local board failed to decide a matter within 60 days of an application being made for a hearing of a board decision.

The time during which the tribunal must set a hearing date is extended from seven to 10 days. The time period in which the tribunal has to complete a hearing is extended from 30 days to 45 days. A further 20 days is allowed for the issuing of the decision and the reasons.

1320

There are also two changes that affect the role of the minister in the decisions of the tribunal. If asked to review a decision, the minister would have 30 days to do so after receiving the tribunal’s decision and the reasons for its decision. Currently, the minister must review the decision within 30 days of receiving the decision itself, without having the benefit of receiving the reasons for the decision. Also, the minister will be empowered to confirm the decision prior to the expiry of 30 days rather than letting the full 30 days run out.

To sum up, there are two key changes we are asking for in these amendments: (1) to create a single marketing commission to replace the two current marketing bodies, the milk commission and the Farm Products Marketing Board; and (2) to provide enhanced licensing powers to marketing boards. These enhanced powers would include permitting terms, conditions and penalties to be applied to licences.

As I mentioned earlier, these licensing changes have been requested by the Ontario Vegetable Growers’ Marketing Board. This board had licensing difficulties with some growers last year and is anxious to have these new provisions in place before negotiations begin in February on establishing the 1988 processing contracts.

I therefore urge the honourable members to pass these amendments in order to maintain an orderly marketing system for processed vegetables and to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our farm products marketing system.

Mr. Wildman: I rise to indicate the support of our caucus for the amendments proposed by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

One might be tempted to look at this as the minister attempting to build one more empire for himself, with a new commission and so on, but in fact he is really streamlining the situation with the one commission. In practice, the same people have sat on both bodies for a long time.

As he indicated in his remarks, the Ontario Vegetable Growers’ Marketing Board is in support of the recommendations with regard to licensing and has requested that the Legislature move expeditiously to pass this legislation so it would be in place before the spring growing season and the growers would have the protection they need.

It is not exactly what the Ontario Vegetable Growers’ Marketing Board originally suggested as a contract security enhancement program, but through discussions with the ministry, it has been obvious that the licensing, with terms and conditions as an alternative method, accomplishes the objectives the marketing board had with regard to its proposal for a contract security enhancement program.

The board has written to me, and I am sure to the Conservative caucus, and indicated its support and requested that we support the amendments and that the bill be dealt with as soon as possible. We are glad it is possible for us to deal with this legislation before the House adjourns.

I will follow the example of the minister in being as brief as possible and just indicate that we think it is unfortunate that we have to deal with what I consider to be important legislation so quickly in this House. But we will be in support of it and hope it will have the effects the board and the ministry believe it will have in protecting growers throughout Ontario.

Mr. Villeneuve: I, too, rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to lend support to Bill 65. The Conservatives realize that some streamlining had to occur here and we do have the full support of all commodity producers who will be touched by this. It will eliminate some of the procedures that have been brought on to some of the producers by the processors of vegetables which have not been all that savoury. I think this will look after that particular problem.

In summation, I also wish to make sure that the acts being amended are opened up and consolidated to improve the efficiency in the administration. However, it should also always be remembered that the unique nature of dairy products must be maintained as pure dairy products. I believe the minister has ensured that this will continue as in the past. I am pleased to provide support to Bill 65.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I simply wish to thank the honourable members in both the official opposition and the third party for their support of this important legislation. I look forward to that kind of continued support in the spring session of the Legislature.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have a very brief comment. This is the first of the two pay bills. It increases the indemnities and allowances paid to members under the Legislative Assembly Act by 4.4 per cent, which I believe my colleagues in the government believe is a fair increase, taking into account the inflationary pressures of this past year and the cost-of-living increase.

Mr. B. Rae: I realize that this question of pay is one on which leaders of opposition parties are supposed to remain blissfully silent. I do not intend to play that role today. I do want to speak out on behalf of members. Perhaps I could see my role as something akin to being the chief shop steward of those who are not able to speak for themselves. A number of members have come up to me privately and said, “Is there something you can do to help us on this one?” Many of them are members of the Liberal Party. I do intend to speak on their behalf. even though I realize that in so doing I am always liable to raise the interest level of members of the press and of others on this question of our salaries.

I have been a member of two different assemblies, this one and the House of Commons, and I think it is fair to say that among the members’ chit-chat and talking about their conditions and their working lives, we are, like every other citizen in this province, people who think from time to time about how we get paid, what that process should be like and how we should feel about that.

We are subject to an extraordinary degree of public scrutiny as members of a profession that deals with the public and for whom publicity is a way of life for us. The question is raised on many occasions, whenever salaries are raised, that it is not the right time. People say this is not the right year. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is never a right year to deal with this question. It is always going to be one which will raise eyebrows and obviously one which will raise concerns from a public which in many cases does not have the highest opinion of those of us who are in elected office.

I want to make it very clear that I do not have any figure in my head that is an ideal figure for what a member should be paid, or for what a cabinet minister should be paid, or for what the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party should be paid.

1330

What I want to say to the House is this. I do not think it is right that we should be put in the position every year of having to determine our own salaries. It is inappropriate. It puts us in an invidious position, and I think it is wrong. I can tell every member in the House I have expressed this view privately to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on more than one occasion -- to the point now where he does not particularly want to hear my views on the subject any more as I did with the previous occupant of his office.

I think it is wrong. I think it is unhelpful to our own job. I think it is unnecessary. I do not think we should he put in the position of having to do it or in the position of doing it. In fact, the House reached that conclusion the last time we were a minority parliament in the late 1970s, when we gave to the Commission on Election Finances a specific responsibility with respect to the establishment of salaries, pay scales and what they should be.

The elections commission has come forward every year with its annual report. If one looks at that annual report, and I encourage members who have not seen it to do so, he will find that over the years the commission has made recommendations with respect to salaries of ordinary members and other indemnities that are to be paid. Those recommendations have time and again been ignored by the government to the point where in its last report the commission said: “We think this whole question of what the commission is doing ought to be reviewed. We do not think it ought to be simply left up to us. We are not interested in going through a long process of trying to assess what is fair, of going out on the record, of making public our recommendations and of receiving criticism and praise or whatever for doing this and then simply having it dismissed by the government in power because it does not think it is the right time, or it does not think it is right, correct or fair that it should be done.”

l happen to think there is a good solution, which I have urged publicly and will be doing so again today. What we should be doing in this bill is establishing a commission -- it could be the elections commission; it does not matter -- and giving to that commission the power to establish salaries; not simply to make recommendations, the power to establish what they should be. Having established it, we should not only say it should be dealing with questions of what our salaries should be; it should be looking at them in relationship to what provincial court judges are being paid, in relationship to what deputy ministers are being paid and in relationship to what other order in council appointees are being paid.

There are ample examples across the world where this is done. In Australia, for example, if I can give the members one example, there is a commission that provides an annual recommendation, which is binding, that establishes salaries across the board for all senior levels in the public service and for people who hold elected office. It makes eminent good sense. We should not be put in this position of having to say, “So-and-so is worth so much and so-and-so is worth so little.”

Let me also say, while I am on my feet, that I personally think it is inappropriate for the cabinet to be determining what the salary of ordinary members ought to be and, in effect, imposing a kind of caucus discipline or party discipline on those recommendations -- in other words, making it a government bill. This is not a bill of the House. This is not our bill. This was not done in consultation with us. This was simply given to us as a government bill by the cabinet.

I think ordinary members resent that. Obviously, this is done in confidence, but I think it is only fair that I say this to the government. A number of them have said to me privately that they think it is unfair and inappropriate. They do not appreciate it and they think it ought to be changed. So I am opposed to it.

Let me also say that a number of things have been said about our salary level. I only want to respond to the most recent one, because it is so out of line that I think it is something one has to respond to. This is a comment of a well-known Liberal, a former candidate in many jurisdictions, now a Toronto councillor, Mrs. Rowlands, who recommended a salary of $57,500 for councillors of Metropolitan Toronto, the new positions which are being created. She said, and I am quoting from today’s Globe and Mail, “‘We do three times the work of back-benchers in the provincial Legislature.... They can do nothing and nobody ever notices.’”

Mr. Faubert: Oh!

Mr. B. Rae: I see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) is perking up. He knows the problems here.

That is the end of her quotation. Then the article says: “Members of the Ontario Legislature, not including cabinet members or others in special positions, receive $50,192 a year. They can also receive $68 a day for participating in standing committees. Metro politicians say that could add an extra $5,000 to $10,000.”

I have here a copy of the Public Accounts of Ontario for 1986-1987. It is no mystery what people make on their per diem allowances. It is right here on page 21 and I want to read out some figures just so members will know how completely out of line this view of what is going on here is.

It is all here, any one you want. The standing committee on the administration of justice: the leader of the third party made the grand total of $1,185 as the chairman on a per diem basis. It is not between $5,000 and $10,000. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) made $34. He pulled that in.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: And that was before double dipping.

Mr. B. Rae: I could go through the list. The former member for Cambridge, Mr. Barlow, $136, the member for Brampton South (Mr. Callahan), $136 -- I think he was in court that day; the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), $184. What we are talking about here are figures which are substantially below the ones which are being bandied about by so-called experts who know what our pay structure and pay rates are.

I want to go on record as saying this and then I will sit down. I think members who serve the public should be paid reasonably, should be paid fairly and should be paid in a way which provides them with some compensation and recognition for the work they do, and I do not think we should be ashamed when we say that to the public. We work hard for a living. Members work hard.

[Applause]

Mr. B. Rae: That is the first time I have ever been applauded by the Liberal caucus since they got here in November. I want members to know that.

Mr. Faubert: Or even back-benchers.

Mr. B. Rae: By and large.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: You are finally saying the right stuff.

Mr. B. Rae: The second thing I want to say is that I think it is wrong for committee work to be seen as some kind of extra thing which one does in order to earn an extra $70 or $75 a day.

At a time in the history of this House, committee work was regarded as something extraordinary that one did and by doing so one did not go back to his regular line of work. If you were a farmer, you had to hire somebody else to plant your seeds; if you were working in a law office, you were not able to do that; if you were an accountant, you could not do that, so you were paid for committee work in exchange for that.

That is a 19th century view of this institution; this is a 20th century institution. Our committees here work and operate as an integral part of the way we operate. As party leaders, why should we be saying, “OK, this committee is going to be sitting so many days,” and calculating and thinking? It is ridiculous. It is not the way we should operate.

The way we should operate is there should be a salary. I am not a big fan of the tax-free allowances, I must say. I think we should be focusing on what our salary benefits should be and we should be focusing attention and asking the Commission on Election Finances to do that. We should get rid of the anomaly of separate pay in terms of what people get for working on committee. There should be a basic salary and that ought to be it, and everybody ought to know what it is.

I think the public ought to know what our hours are. If they want to know what our hours are, I am sure we would all be prepared to tell them. I can tell everyone here that the members of my party do not work a 40-hour week. Everybody knows that. They never have.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Wait a minute. Tell them it is more than that.

Mr. B. Rae: My colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) says to make it clear that it is more than that. I want to make clear that it is more than that.

When the headlines came out last week that said I was lolling about in the sun with four beautiful women, my three daughters and my wife, I naturally had cause to reflect on them. That is life. You do things and you live your life in a goldfish bowl. Everybody is aware of these things. That is the way it is and there is good-humoured razzing back and forth. But I want to make it very clear that this is the price we pay for being in public life; everything we do is public.

1340

I do not think many of us, on reflection, have too many regrets about that. From time to time we might, but that is the cost we pay. I do not think it is unreasonable for us to say that, in exchange for that, we ourselves expect not to be put in the invidious position of having to creep around and say, “It should be 3.9 or 4.2,” never having had over the last 10 years any real assessment of what we do in terms of the hours, in terms of the work of this assembly compared to what it was 10 years ago. It is dramatically different. When l got here, the assembly sat for five or six months. The last two and a half years we have been sitting for eight or nine months in terms of what we have been doing and the work that has gone on, plus the work of committees outside that time.

I want to make one other point, one other anomaly which the leader of the third party is not able to address. I will address it since l have been in his position once, and it is this. The discrepancy between the pay for the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the third party is simply too great. If members want to look it up, it is about 14 grand and change. When the commission in Ottawa in the last go-around looked at these things, it said that was a discrepancy that ought to be addressed, that one ought to recognize that leaders of parties, whether they bear the title of leader of the official opposition or not, have roughly equivalent duties. I do not find myself doing any more or less than I was doing when I was leader of the third party and I suspect the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) feels the same way. He cannot say that. I am going to say it on his behalf.

I almost feel that this is an issue that has to come out of the closet. Members have to be open and feel they can talk about this question because it is one of the few issues in which we all have an equal stake. I do not know whether any Liberal members are going to get up or not, but we intend to move some amendments. The leader of the third party and I have discussed our approaches and we have found that they are remarkably similar. We want to see a commission established. We want that commission to be independent. We want that commission to set our salaries. We do not want them to be set by the cabinet. We do not want them to be set by the Premier. We do not want to be put in the position of having to vote on them ourselves.

I think it is time we discussed this openly and candidly with each other. I can assure members that if we do the reform once, it will then have been done and the public will see that this is the way it is going to be. Let the commission determine what the rate should be and let that be the end of it. I hope we never have to have another debate in this place or in any other place in terms of what our salaries should be.

Mr. Brandt: First of all, I wish to associate myself with many of the comments made by the leader of the official opposition with respect to the process in which the question and the issue of members’ pay is handled here in this Legislative Assembly.

For some time now, I have had some degree of discomfort with the whole arrangement, the idea of our having to sit here and vote and approve our own pay in some fashion or another, those recommendations coming principally from the Premier but perhaps by way of cabinet review as well. From the standpoint of our party, I believe it causes some perception problems in terms of what the public sees as the manner in which we grant ourselves our own pay and the manner in which we arrange for our pay to be approved by the Legislative Assembly.

I think there is another problem in terms of even the time of the year in which these pay raises are put through. They normally, as members know, come at the very end of the session and there is a suggestion constantly from our friends, the members of the media, that we kind of sneak this thing through during the waning hours of the session and before we all run off to a very happy and comforting vacation; to the south, usually, where the sun shines somewhat more brightly than it does in Toronto at this time of the year.

I think there is also a perception problem that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) talked about in terms of the attitudes and beliefs of people as they relate to the responsibilities of those of us who serve in this assembly. I do not think there is one member of this assembly who has not been asked about the next three of four months that they are going to have off -- and I underline that word -- with people knowing full well that just because there is a break here in the Legislative Assembly, this does not mean that the period that is going to follow is going to be a period of some lengthy, elongated kind of a vacation. It simply does not work that way. So we do have some perception problems and we might as well come to grips with those perception problems.

We might as well, in a very nonpartisan way, understand that if the pay of members is going to be appropriately established in some fashion that can remove perhaps some of those negative perceptions, can remove the question of the compromise that we find ourselves in by being forced to vote for our own pay increases, then we are going to have to reach out and attempt to arrive at some different type of mechanism.

Legislatures have grappled with this problem for some number of years. I fault the present government not one bit that they are in the dilemma they are in now, because I sensed the same kind of problem when I sat in the inner confines of cabinet and when I sat way back in the fourth row about where those members are nodding off right now while I am giving these very cogent remarks.

It is interesting to note that back in 1978 the Commission on Election Finances was asked to review this whole matter. The Election Finances Commission did take a look at this entire question and the idea at that time, fully one decade ago, was to take this issue and remove it from the decision-making process that goes on here in the Legislature. I support the thrust that was initiated back in 1978. The problem is that it never came to any kind of appropriate conclusion.

What has happened is that in the 1987 report of that commission -- and I quote the recommendation that came out of it -- it said, “The commission further recommends that its responsibilities with respect to the said indemnities, allowances and salaries be reviewed.”

I take from that not that they were necessarily not accepting, if you will, the responsibilities that they were given in 1978, but they wanted to be given a more clear-cut idea of what their responsibilities were going to be with respect to the very question that we have before us today. Should this commission or should some other body take an independent, arm’s-length look at the situation with the entire purpose of making an appropriate recommendation relative to what our pay levels should be?

There may be members of this assembly, as an example, who are not aware of the fact that there are other provinces, namely, Quebec, where the pay level is substantially higher than it is here. Is that appropriate? Is that right? Is it correct? Do they work harder? Are they in some way worth more money than the members of this assembly?

I cannot answer those questions other than to say there is a very substantial pay discrepancy between those two legislative assemblies, both of which do similar work. Yet this is a larger province with a larger assembly. Uniformly, when one goes through the other provinces, it appears that there is some relationship between the size of the province and the size of the assembly and the amount of pay. So Ontario would normally be the second-highest paid assembly in the country, after the House of Commons, because it is the largest province. Now maybe that does not follow and maybe an independent review taken by a commission or by some other independent authority would come to a different conclusion.

When we look at the percentile differential between the pay here and the pay of the Quebec assembly, between the pay here and the House of Commons, we will see that if they are, in fact, appropriately paid, then I share with the members my view that we are substantially underpaid. If the reverse is true, if we are appropriately paid, then in some fashion the logic would only follow that they are overpaid. Something is out of whack and something is wrong, because the differential is simply too substantial in terms of those respective assemblies.

I think the commission or the authority that would be set up to review this matter must be seen to be an independent body, but as well the perception of that particular body must be completely, totally at arm’s length and independent in every respect without any influence from any member of this House.

1350

If I can go back in history a little bit, I served as a councillor and as the mayor of the city of Sarnia for some 10 years. While I was in that capacity, we came to grips with this very same problem. I am sure the mayor of Brantford and others sat there grinding out an appropriate increase and trying to find some mechanism that would allow them to face the public and say, “We are worth a certain percentage more,” or, “We have to adjust our salaries or whatever on an annual basis.”

We know, as colleagues in what I consider to be an honourable profession, that there is no number that is a magic elixir that will suit the requirements, suit the expectations, if you will, of the public at large. Some of them think we are grossly overpaid now and grossly underworked. Very few of them, from anything I have ever seen, feel we should be in a position, first, to establish our own pay; and second, to establish any kind of increase.

What we did in my own community at that time was to take the annual inflation index and simply use that as the guideline that would be the increase that would be allowed to the members of council and also to the mayor. I am not saying this is the answer to the problem. I am simply saying it was one solution that happens to be in place to this very day. Some six years after I left that council it still operates by the same rules we put in place at that time.

I have some problems with it because obviously the spending on the part of the various levels of government contributes to the inflation index in some fashion. If you take more taxes out of the system, if you balloon spending in whatever fashion, you can have an influence over how quickly that inflation index is going to go up. Of course, this is stretching the logic to some extent, particularly on a municipal council, but you might influence and you could have some small marginal impact on what that inflationary increase might happen to be.

All I can tell the members again is that in that circumstance the council worked with the annual inflation index prepared by the federal government. They applied that as the formula that would be used for their pay increases. To this day it has remained in place and it has remained effective and with a limited amount of controversy; not none, but at least a limited amount of controversy.

I think that is partially what we are looking for here. Looking at the pay structure that the Leader of the Opposition read out for some members here in the House today, I do not think anyone got into this honourable profession with the idea of or anticipated getting rich in this profession. That is not why we are here. Whatever our partisan persuasions might happen to be, I happen to have a tremendous feeling of respect for the profession we have chosen to serve in. I have a tremendous respect for the historical concept of this House we are in at this very moment.

For those reasons, I believe the pay should be a realistic one, not a large, large increase. I do not have a figure in mind any more than most members do, but it should be established in some independent, arm’s-length fashion that would allow us to go back and say, when we are responding to our constituents: “We did not set our own pay. We were not responsible for the ultimate, final result of whatever that recommendation might happen to be.”

It is for this reason -- l will not go on at great length -- that my colleague the House leader for our party and the very well respected member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) is going to discuss, when we get into committee on this question, a series of amendments and recommendations which will remove the process from the Legislative Assembly and will allow the process to be placed in the hands of a finance commission, an electoral commission of some kind, that will bring in recommendations after careful analysis based on whatever criteria it feels are appropriate in the particular instance. Then those recommendations will be brought forward, and I add -- this is an important question -- will be binding upon the Premier, the cabinet and this House.

If we get into showboating and grandstanding and somebody, because he feels the increase perhaps is too large or the increase is not large enough, wants to find a way to play around with the proposals and the recommendations -- many of us have seen this happen on local councils, where somebody who complained bitterly about the level of pay in the back room took a public position which was an entire about face because he got in front of the media and wanted to play the good guy and pretend that he was not interested in the pay increase. I have seen instances where the majority of council bit the bullet and agreed to a modest increase while somebody else showboated and voted against it, knowing only too well that that one individual thought the increase should have been even higher. I see some members nodding because they know from what I speak.

Mr. Neumann: They donate it back.

Mr. Brandt: There have been occasions when they have donated it back, I understand.

The question before us is, how do we want to handle this very sensitive topic? We can continue on the way we have gone, which places the full responsibility in the hands of the Premier. I do not think it is fair to the Premier to have to make this decision. I served as a member of the executive and a member of the cabinet for some number of years. I know the differential between those of us who sit in the back benches and are ordinary members and the amount of money given to cabinet ministers. If you take a straight percentage increase year after year, the gap will widen.

Maybe that gap widening does not bother members, but taken over a long enough period of time it means that what was right in 1970 perhaps can, under no logical kind of comparison, be right in 1988, because the gap, on the basis of a percentile increase right across the board, means that more and more money is going to be going to one group of people and, by comparison, less money to another group of people. So that has to be looked at.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It used to bother John Sweeney.

Mr. Brandt: I understand that there was a point in time when some of the members of the current cabinet were bothered by that, and perhaps that was when they were in opposition and the circumstances were different; but we would like to be a part of the solution on this question, as members of the third party, rather than part of the problem.

We offer a nonpartisan, straightforward, businesslike approach which limits the amount of controversy, limits the amount of public perception, if you will, as it relates to this question. We offer that, perhaps not a 100 per cent solution, perhaps not a totally perfect solution, but one that I believe is a quantum leap forward in the right direction.

I would ask members to listen carefully, with open minds, to what the member for Nipissing is going to say when he relates his suggestions to them in regard to our amendments. We will put those forward in the light of us all going now to share this four-month holiday that is coming up. I said that in jest, Mr. Speaker, because earlier, before you arrived, I made it very clear that we do not have a very extended holiday period coming up, that in fact most of the members will be back in their constituency offices working very hard.

I want to close my remarks simply by saying I appreciate the dilemma that we have today. On one hand, it is a question of whether we vote for the increase that is being proposed, which is a straight percentile increase, based on the Premier’s best judgment -- and I am not going to question that; were I in his position, I might have made exactly the same decision he made.

The fact of the matter is, however, I take strong exception to the process and it is to the process that I tried to address my remarks today, because the process is wrong. The process should not compromise us as members. The process should not take into question the kind of workload that we have, the kind of effort and responsibility we carry. It should be a process that, when all objective views are taken of how we are reimbursed for our efforts, it is simply done fairly, equitably and in a balanced way relative to the pay that other members of society receive.

As an example -- and I was going to close off but I will give these examples very quickly -- it would not surprise members to know that many schoolteachers receive far more than a member of the Legislative Assembly or that there are people who are in the proud profession of policing or firemen who receive far more than we do. Maybe that is right and maybe that is wrong, but the public perception that we are at the trough, if you will, that we somehow have our hand in somebody else’s pocket all the time or that we are taking advantage of our privileged position as elected members, is simply wrong.

All I want to see when we put forward our amendments is that we find a mechanism that is workable, that will satisfy the needs of all members of the House and that will bring us to a point with respect to this particular issue where we can all feel a higher level of comfort when we reach this time of the year than has been the case in the past, because it is a very uncomfortable time when we have to vote on our own increases.

1400

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have listened to this with real interest. It has been, as has been pointed out by the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) --

Mr. B. Rae: Compounded, you might say.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The Leader of Opposition says something of compound interest. I have been in this assembly a little longer than he has, although I have not served in that other place and I know that some sense of experience elsewhere brings a comparative analysis that not too many of us here can share.

I imagine what the former member for Wentworth, and now chairman of the public service staff relations board might say, because I remember when I was first elected what the former House leader for the New Democratic Party and the former member for Rainy River and others as I recall, during the debate back in the mid-1970s when I was first elected, were saying.

For example, as I listen to the member for Sarnia, the leader of the third party, I remember well the circumstances of the mid-1970s. I think the then leader of his party, who at the time happened to have been the leader of the government, was involved in an interesting adjustment, I think prior to the call of an election in September 1975. I may be wrong, but I think there was some discussion at that time. It has been, as members have pointed out, an issue of some real debate, both in this chamber and elsewhere.

It has also been noted that we do this at this time of the year. As I recall the situation when I was first elected -- my friend the member for Windsor-Riverside and certainly the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) might want to correct me on this -- this matter was dealt with at another time of the year. I think it was about the end of June, just before we adjourned for the summer recess. It came about that it moved along in the calendar.

What we have before the assembly in Bill 79 is, we think, a fair and reasonable increase in this year, recognizing that the inflation rate, the cost of living, has been in the 4 per cent to 4.5 per cent range. I think the consumer price index for this period of time is something in the neighbourhood of about 4.5 per cent.

The member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) asks about process and I want to talk about that in a moment. I think it is true to say that the Leader of the Opposition is right in that times have changed. I remember when I was first elected, my grandfather, who had served in this assembly for the better part of five parliaments, 16 or 17 years, as one of the first things he wanted to know asked what I was being paid. When I told him that in 1975 I was being paid $15,000 as an indemnity and $7,500 for expenses, that seemed to be quite a lot by reference to the rate that was paid in 1929 when he was first elected. As the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there have been significant changes in the way this assembly sits and works in the intervening years.

There have been other changes as well on a number of related factors that I think have not been touched upon in this debate. I was interested when the Leader of the Opposition was taking us through the blue book about who received what indemnification for committee work. I have probably pored over those accounts as closely as anyone in this assembly. I used to find it very interesting just to see what was happening. I always wanted to see what I was spending and what was being registered in my name.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Now we don’t know.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The accounts are fairly straightforward in most of that regard, I say to the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

I do not want to go on at too great length on this. I simply want to put the case that on the increase for this year, 1987, a year in which the consumer price index is in the 4.5 per cent range, an increase of 4.4 over that 12-month period is, I believe, fair and reasonable. That certainly is the view that --

Mr. Brandt: If the base is correct.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Sarnia talks about the base. Again, I do not want to go on at great length. I well remember one of his most esteemed colleagues telling me about five years ago that if the day ever came that, for example, I should serve on an executive council, I might appreciate that things were not quite as I imagined them as a private member. I remember vigorously resisting that, saying it could not be so. My friend’s former colleague -- he has gone on to other things; I will not dare indicate the place because it would quickly identify who I am talking about -- was not all wrong.

We have, I believe, a fair and reasonable proposal on the matter of members’ salaries before the House at the present moment in so far as an annual adjustment is concerned, but the question has been raised by members opposite about process. I would like to make a couple of comments in that connection.

We are always, it seems, in this assembly able to consider changes to process. We have had some discussions informally about -- I guess I cannot speak to amendments that are not yet before the assembly, but I would be the first to say it would be an unwise person who did not try to put in place processes that are more effective than what might be the case presently.

Mr. B. Rae: What is that? Say that once again?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it would be an unwise person --

Mr. B. Rae: I thought I was listening to Allan MacEachen. I couldn’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I say to the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues and the members of the third party that it would be an unwise person who locked in place a process imagining that it could not be improved upon.

I have to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not share his view, if it is his view, that an independent commission might be established which, working in happy harmony, would produce a result which would in many cases lift the burden of responsibility from elected members. That is just my view. I do not think that kind of paradigm is the happy world the Leader of the Opposition imagines.

l heard his view, I think very eloquently and strongly argued. I have had this discussion with a number of other members. “Why do you not just do this, because then it will be out of our hands and will be seen as a better process?” I am not so sure that is my own point of view.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As long as June Rowlands isn’t a commissioner.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Scarborough West talks about the view offered by a member of Toronto city council, as reported, according to the Leader of the Opposition I think, in one of the Toronto newspapers today. Again, l would just take note of those comments as offered by my friends opposite. I know the lady in question and we have discussed a number of issues over the years. When I was first elected, she was the director of our research office, as I believe the present member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) was the director of the research office for the New Democratic Party.

1410

I just want to make the point that one sits here on a daily basis and hears the government roundly condemned for what is done, apparently in its name, by independent agencies, boards and corporations. Do any examples come to mind, I ask honourable members, these past few days? I can think of some very, very independent outfits that did a number of very colourful things, and there are a number of people in this place who would have us believe that there was not very much independence about that at all, that somehow the executive council must have been more responsible than is alleged.

An hon. member: I have no idea what you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) says he has no idea of what I speak, and that might be just as well left at that.

I say to my friends opposite that I think the people of this province expect us to behave responsibly in this respect and I think this is responsible legislation. It is quite clear that there is, as always, a difference of opinion about what is appropriate, given the consumer price index and other things. I have to indicate that --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That Bob Nixon shroud is falling over the whole place.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am going to conclude my remarks, lest the member --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are just lucky you are not elected as House leader. Look at your back-benchers.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: I have had better responses from the chamber of commerce than you are getting from your own members.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have to tell members that I have had some very considerable experience in this matter with the members of the New Democratic Party. I think of one member who is no longer here, who used to, in this matter, encourage a private debate in the corridors of this place that was always interesting.

I say in conclusion that the bill before us is a bill which increases the indemnities and the allowances paid to all members under the Legislative Assembly Act by 4.4 per cent in this year, 1987. We think that is reasonable. We think that is fair. I simply submit to my colleagues that if over the course of the coming months and years, in this parliament at least, they want to discuss some of the particular anomalies -- the Leader of the Opposition mentions, for example, the relationship in rates of pay as between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party -- that is a debate we can have, it seems to me, at some future date.

We want to recommend this bill for the consideration and approval of this assembly, and it is for that reason that I am quite happy to do that at the present moment.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

EXECUTIVE COUNCIL AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 80, An Act to amend the Executive Council Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very briefly, the intent of Bill 80, the Executive Council Amendment Act, 1987, is to increase salaries paid under the Executive Council Act to members of the executive council by 4.4 per cent.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

House in committee of the whole.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Consideration of Bill 79, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

The Deputy Chairman: Does any honourable member have any comments, questions or amendments to be offered with respect to Bill 79, and if so, to which sections?

Mr. B. Rae: I know the House leader for the third party will want to comment on this, but I do want to give notice that we do intend to move amendments to section 8 of the bill, and there are some other amendments that I know my colleagues are going to move as well. We will be moving those in concert. We have some amendments that we want to move in co-ordination with the third party.

The Deputy Chairman: Are there any amendments to sections 1 through 8 of the bill?

Mr. Harris: I do not think so.

Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.

On section 8:

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Harris moves that section 8 of the bill be struck out and the following substituted therefore:

“Sections 1 through 7 of this act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of April, 1987.”

Mr. Harris: I have other sections. Shall I read them all into the record?

The Deputy Chairman: Mr. Harris moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following as a section of the act:

“8a Sections 60 through 69 of the said act, as amended by sections 1 through 8 of this bill, be repealed and the following substituted therefore:

“60(1) There should be a commission composed of three persons who are officers of the assembly.

“(2) The Lieutenant Governor in Council shall appoint three persons to the commission on the address of the assembly.

“(3) The persons appointed shall hold office for a term of five years and may be reappointed for a further term or terms.

“(4) The persons appointed as members of the commission may be removed before the expiration of the term of office, by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for cause on the address of the assembly.

“(5) The members of the commission shall be paid such remuneration and allowances as are fixed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

“(6) The employees and officers that are necessary for the performance of the duties of the commission shall be members of the staff of the Office of the Assembly.

“61. The commission shall report annually upon the affairs of their office to the Speaker of the Assembly, who shall cause the report to be laid before the assembly.

“62(1) The commission shall establish annually, as of March 31 each year, the indemnities and allowances to be paid to all members of the assembly, all members of the executive council, and all parliamentary assistants for the following fiscal year.

“(2) The commission may make such differentiation in allowances and indemnities for each member of the assembly, each member of the executive council, and each parliamentary assistant as they see fit.”

1420

Mr. Harris also moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following as a section of the act:

“8b Section 8a of this act shall be deemed to have come into force on the 1st day of January, 1988.”

The Deputy Chairman: I have had a chance to briefly --

Mr. B. Rae: Madam Chairman, before you make your decision with respect to whether the matter is in order, l wonder if I might be permitted to further amend the motion moved by my colleague the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris). At that point, you can then make a decision. It is a subamendment to his amendment. If you are going to rule them both out, I would like to get them both on the record. If you are going to rule them both in, I would like to have them discussed.

The Deputy Chairman: Yes, I am quite prepared to hear the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. B. Rae moves that after the words “parliamentary assistants” in the fifth line of the amending section 8a, subsection 62(1) of the act, the following be inserted:

“Leaders of recognized parties, House officers for all parties, officers of the House, judges and justices of provincially appointed courts, deputy ministers, appointees by orders in council and other positions as may be determined from time to time, and that decisions from this commission be final and enacted in their whole.”

Mr. Harris: I wonder, Madam Chairman, if it would be possible to deal with section 8a first as opposed to section 8.

The Deputy Chairman: I have had a chance to review this and I feel section 8a should be dealt with first with respect to that. Do I have the unanimous agreement of members of the House?

Agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: It is my ruling that section 8a is out of order for three specific reasons. One, the purpose of that amendment is to change the existing mechanism for fixing members’ salaries. It was not contemplated in the bill itself as it was introduced, Bill 79. It is beyond the scope of the existing bill and is inappropriate.

Also, with respect to the amendment, subsection 62(1), this is a money bill. It is an amendment that can only be moved by a minister of the crown. The subsection has the effect of specifically directing an allocation of public funds contrary to section 15 of the standing orders.

Also, with respect to subsection 62(1), it purports to deal with members of the executive council other than the Premier himself. As a result of that, it is not within the scope of the Legislative Assembly Act.

For those reasons I rule that the amending section 8a is out of order.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Madam Chairman, I know we are not supposed to debate your rulings, but perhaps you can clarify a couple of matters for me. The bill that is before us is a bill that sets the wages for members of the assembly. That is the process currently in the Legislative Assembly Act. The bill comes before the Legislature, is proposed by the government and we pass judgement on the bill.

The amendment proposed by the member for Nipissing is changing that process but is dealing with exactly the same matter, and that is the setting of wages for the members of the Legislative Assembly. I do not understand why those two items would be in conflict.

With regard to the expenditure of funds, you are contemplating that the commission would recommend the expenditure of funds. We deal on a regular basis in this place with the suggestion that boards, commissions and committees be set up, all of which do cost money, but we deal with those kinds of amendments all the time.

There is not an expectation or a requirement that this commission that would be set up by the amendment would result in an increased expenditure in funds for the wages of the members of the assembly. In fact, it is possible that they might even recommend a lowering of the wages. Who knows? But they could recommend any of a variety, so I am not sure how you can make the ruling the way you have.

The Deputy Chairman: On my first point on the proposals that change the existing mechanism for fixing members’ salaries, it is my opinion that indeed this changes it substantially beyond the scope of the proposed bill, that it goes far beyond that and that this amendment should be as a new bill itself.

Mr. B. Rae: Madam Chairman, hearing your ruling, and since this is the Legislative Assembly Act, I can certainly appreciate why giving the commission the power to deal with salaries of deputy ministers and judges would be to go beyond the scope of the Legislative Assembly Act; so in the interests of reaching a fair conclusion, I would certainly be prepared to fight that battle another day, with the notice to the House that I certainly intend to do so. But I honestly must say that I do not see how a bill which amends the salary level of members cannot be amended so that we can talk about a process which will have very much the same subject matter. I find it hard to see how that is out of order.

Mr. Harris: I concur with the leader of the official opposition that perhaps his amendment can be construed as something substantially different. I wonder if you wanted to reflect on section 8a without the amendment of the leader of the official opposition and give us any reason.

We are talking about a bill that has been introduced, that affects the salaries of every particular member of the Legislature. Our amendment deals with the process that is to take, and I do not think, if you look at the Legislative Assembly Act, that what we are proposing is substantially different from what has been the practice.

There has been a commission, a different commission from this one. We are proposing to change the commission that will make the recommendations from the election expenses commission to this commission. In fact, as has been pointed out by others, we are not talking about the expenditures or the commitments of funds necessarily, and in fact it may save the government some money.

Mr. Breaugh: Madam Chairman, I appreciate that in your previous ruling I could see where one might have found that that did expand it beyond the scope of the bill. That subamendment having been withdrawn, however, we would now be dealing solely with the amendment put forward by the member for Nipissing, and it does seem to me that the confines of that amendment are somewhat different and the normal rules that you might reflect upon should be seen in a different light.

I would caution that a quick ruling on the matter is not going to solve the problem. I would urge you to reflect very carefully that what has been proposed in that particular amendment which is now before us does not clearly go beyond the scope of this bill. It does not clearly call for the expenditure of money. It does specifically ask that a question be investigated by a commission. Now, whether that would cause money to be expended or not would be solely at the discretion of the government.

What we have before us at the moment is precisely something which is clearly within the scope of this bill, without question. What you have before you now is something which clearly does not require the expenditure of money. That would be dependent solely on whether or not the government chose to expend money by order in council or by some other means to do that.

1430

I would urge you to reflect with great care upon this. This is a matter of some considerable sensitivity, and we ask that you reflect on the matter. What is before you now is, to repeat, clearly within the scope of this bill. The matter of whether or not it calls for the expenditure of money is something which the government would have at its discretion, but the amendment that is before you does not entail the expenditure of money.

I would urge you, if you choose to make your ruling now, to do so with great care and great caution, not just because it happens to be a matter that is near and dear to our personal pocketbooks but also because you are going to set a most unfortunate precedent in here. You are going to get the assembly itself into some very great problems if you say we cannot amend an act to set up a commission to look at something.

If that is the ruling which you make here this afternoon, though it is probably in the government’s interest to do that, I am going to tell you that it may be this afternoon but it will not be on most other afternoons and you are going to rue the day that you ruled this thing out of order. You could vote it down -- that is fair, I suppose -- but to establish a precedent here this afternoon that no bill can be amended which establishes a commission is going to be something which is going to be really difficult for this assembly to live with, not just today but on other days.

There will be many other days when you are going to have a very unfortunate precedent set here, so I would ask the chair to reflect on the matter carefully and to give some due consideration to the matter, that the consequences of establishing this precedent this afternoon are going to be very tough for the assembly to live with for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just have to say that I think my friend the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will know better than any of us, this is really out of order. We are debating a ruling. I would like to see if I can help take the temperature down a bit here by suggesting that these are complicated matters. There is a very complicated set of amendments here. My concern is that inadvertently, if these amendments are accepted as a package, the honourable member has done just the reverse. For the first quarter of 1988, he has provided no mechanism to pay members of this assembly anything either in terms of base --

Mr. Wildman: We’re dealing with process.

Hon. Mr. Conway: No, that is not so if we take the two together. At first blush, my worry is that he has done exactly what he does not want to do, which is to take away any mechanism. He has repealed the sections under which we are paid anything at the present moment and has put in place a new mechanism which is not going to pay anybody anything until the beginning of April 1988.

My point is, I am just wondering if I can give the assurance that we will discuss these process matters somewhat further -- and I give that assurance -- so we can all be spared this current confusion over some of these technical matters that apply to these particular amendments.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I suggest to the government House leader that one way of dealing with this would be to adjourn debate on this matter now and come back to it in the week of February 8, at which time, if he is making a commitment -- l certainly can speak for our party, and I think the Progressive Conservative Party agrees -- the parties can get together over the next few weeks and look at the process and properly draft an amendment that would set up an independent mechanism. We can deal with it in the week of February 8.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to be clear on what you want us to do. The government has a pay bill for members before the assembly, and we believe that is fair and reasonable. There is a question of process. I want to give the assurance that I am quite prepared, on behalf of the government, to talk to my friends and colleagues in the opposition about that because a number of the points they have raised are fair and ought to be considered further.

It is somewhat difficult in this context to do it in the here and now. I would recommend the passage of Bill 79, as it relates to indemnities for that period of 1987. Let us agree to talk about the process questions through the normal channels at the House leaders’ panel as early as we can do that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I do not disagree with the House leader that it would be nice to pass these two bills today. I think members of the assembly are quite concerned that unless there is some time line in the House leaders’ panel -- as the minister refers to it -- we will discuss the matter time and time again and we will get absolutely nowhere with any new process. We have been discussing this for 10 years and we have never got anything.

The bottom line is that the government has veto power. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) makes a decision on this matter, not the other two House leaders. I think that if we set this matter aside now, commit ourselves to dealing with it in the week of February 8 and have this sitting after it had already passed second reading, that would put some time lines in it that we can look at the process in the week of February 8, pass this for 1987-88 in the week of February 8 and then make an amendment that will set the process for future years.

The Deputy Chairman: The member for Nipissing, then I --

Mr. Harris: I will concur, Madam Chairman. You have been very kind and very generous. I think, though, it is in recognition that there is a little problem here, perhaps for two reasons. One, as outlined by the member for Oshawa, is that we do not get into a ruling of perhaps significant precedent for this Legislature and in keeping with what has been brought forward by the House leader for the official opposition. We concur with the suggestion that we do adjourn at this moment without the ruling so that time can be brought to reflect on that; and respecting the wishes of the government House leader that, as well, a little more time and thought can be put into the amendment that has been put forward.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am quite prepared to adjourn this debate and carry it forward to our next sitting in a month’s time. I want there to be no confusion, however. Recognizing I have just looked at these amendments, my concerns are of a different kind. I think if we accepted these as a package, we would very possibly produce a result I do not think anybody intends. But that is just on first examination. I would be very happy to set this debate aside, to adjourn it now, and to return to it in February. I will make that a very clear undertaking.

I also want to make clear that the government stands by the rates of increase spoken of in both Bill 79 and Bill 80. We are prepared to entertain discussion about some of the procedural questions without prejudice. I want it to be absolutely clear that in saying this, I am not committing myself or the government to anything other than that discussion, some of which has been ongoing.

I do not like to see the chair put in this position. I like to look at these kinds of technical amendments with some care because, as I say, my concern is that there may very well be an implication in this package of amendments which nobody expects, intends or wants.

Mr. B. Rae: If the House leader is proposing that the debate be adjourned without a ruling from the chair on this question, that the government undertake to discuss in its own ranks the question of procedure, as well as have that discussion take place among House leaders and, dare I suggest it, among ordinary members, and that we come back in the February week with an understanding that we will deal with whatever has been agreed to, that is acceptable to us.

If the House leader is telling us that he is not prepared to commit himself to anything because he has not discussed this matter with others, I perfectly understand that and I would not want to see him be put in the position of making undertakings he is not able to keep. No one wants to put a House leader in that invidious position.

He has a month to get to work. I say to ordinary members, this is it, guys. It is not going to come again. This is your only chance, so go to work.

Mr. Harris: As it was House leaders, I guess, who came to an agreement about what we would do during the week of February 8, I should indicate that we also would be prepared to add this to the agenda of the week of February 8 and commit whatever time is required in the interim, of House leaders or any other resources on behalf of our party to resolve this if we just adjourn this session of the committee of the House.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it the pleasure of the committee, then, that we adjourn this debate and proceed back to the House?

1440

Mr. B. Rae: If I may get in on this: you have heard, Madam Chairman, a number of questions about your ruling. I would ask that it be the understanding that there has been no final ruling with respect to the admissibility of any amendment.

The Deputy Chairman: I have already given my ruling with respect to it. If there are any amendments or changes that are going to be made to the particular amendment --

Interjection.

The Deputy Chairman: If a member is going to challenge that ruling, then we will have do so through the appropriate standing order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I was going to make the suggestion that we have another option, and that is that we can simply adjourn this debate for the moment -- I would not mind some consultation with my colleagues the House leaders -- and return to it later this afternoon to pick it up. I would like a little bit of time to consider some of the options. I am just worried that we are hurtling along to a conclusion that may not be satisfactory to everyone.

Mr. Breaugh: Just one small point, Madam Chairman: I would accept and concur that you have in fact made a ruling on the amendment put forward by the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae). I would also argue that you cannot possibly have made a ruling on the motion put by the member for Nipissing since we can have only one motion on the floor at a time. The motion which was on the floor was the one put forward by the member for York South.

You could, of course -- and you did -- make a ruling that that was out of order. I would have anticipated that you would have been forced then to make a subsequent ruling on the motion put forward by the member for Nipissing as soon as it was called and put on the floor of the House.

My interpretation of the standing orders would be that you cannot have more than one motion on the floor at a time, that the question that you ruled on was the question of the amendment which was placed by the member for York South. That would be quite in order and you would have to say yes or no, that is in order or not.

Then the next thing the House would deal with would be the amendment that had been put forward by the member for Nipissing, and you would say yes or no to whether that was in order. You have not done so yet. I am going to plead with you not to do so.

The Deputy Chairman: I believe I asked for the unanimous consent of the House so that I could deal with all of them together, and I had that agreement. I then indicated that I was going to deal with amendment section 8a first and that my ruling was with respect to 8a, and that is the amendment that was moved by the member for Nipissing. That is my recollection. If you have any concerns, you can consult Instant Hansard.

Mr. Breaugh: I certainly have a different recollection from that, yes.

Mr. Harris: I would suggest that the government House leader move adjournment of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Conway: l am quite happy to do that.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Conway, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

ELECTION FINANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved second reading of Bill 81, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just very briefly: my friends the House leaders for the opposition will recall that some days ago -- actually some weeks ago now -- we met at the invitation of the Commission on Election Finances to consider a number of matters, one of which arose from a provision written into the election expenses legislation last time, a year or so ago, I say to the member for Halton Centre (Mrs. Sullivan), who remembers these things better than I do.

I gather that as a result of that last change, having to do with the filings to the commission from a political party, there were some unintended difficulties, so that what members now have before them is a small amendment that responds to a recommendation made by the election expenses commission.

This amendment proposes that section 45 of the Election Finances Act be repealed. Section 45 relates to the filing of financial information whenever the chief financial officer of a political party resigns. I gather on the basis of the experience that the commission has had over the last year and some months that the additional requirement that whenever a CFO for a riding association or a party resigns there be an immediate filing on behalf of the organization has placed an unnecessary burden on the parties or the local associations.

Therefore, we have before us today bill 81, which I want to say again was developed in consultation with the commission and with the involvement of my friends in the opposition. Without further comment, I am pleased to submit that to the House.

Mr. Harris: We are totally in favour of the intent of this. I have been informed that the last time the Election Finances Act was before us, someone in our party actually suggested this amendment. We were roundly booed and it was turned down. I actually do not remember that but I was told that was what happened, so I should get it on the record, I suppose.

Any of those who have been involved in the meeting we had with the Commission on Election Finances could see no substantial benefit in requiring this particular audit. Aside from the cost to the province, I would like to get on the record the unbelievable amount of work the CFOs of our associations and our campaigns are required to do. It is an absolute miracle to me that we are able to find 390 people in this province to perform this chore. I guess that is just for the three parties represented in this chamber. It is more than that when you consider some of the other -- l hate to use the phrase “fringe parties.” With 16 seats, some might suggest we are bordering on that, I do not know. But to be able to find these people to put in the time and the effort gets worse and worse every year.

I want to get that on the record and I want to say we welcome anything that in any way makes it easier for them. In fact, this does so, because if one has to step down for whatever reason -- usually the reason is they cannot afford to donate that amount of time to us any more -- the act as it is currently written says they have to go through another year-end and get all the books ready and what not. Sometimes, if one moves away from your riding in November, you have to do a full year-end, a full audit, in November. You have to do another one the end of December, and it really does not make much sense. So we are very supportive of this particular amendment and we think it brings it more in line with what should have been there in the first place.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 11, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund;

Bill 19, An Act to revise the Race Tracks Tax Act.

1450

EMPLOYEE SHARE OWNERSHIP PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Wrye moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Grandmaître, third reading of Bill 20, An Act to provide an Incentive to Ontario Employees of Small and Medium Sized Corporations to Purchase Newly Issued Shares of their Employer Corporation.

Mr. Harris: I want to briefly put on the record that this bill carries an amendment to it that in effect is a sunset provision for the particular piece of legislation, an amendment that I moved, an amendment that I have served notice I plan to move on every substantial bill that the government brings forward from now on, as long as I continue to represent the riding of Nipissing, and that I am hopeful the House will recognize as being important and necessary for some of the existing programs that the Ministry of Revenue and the government has on its books at this particular time.

It is my personal belief that there are far too many programs that are not measured as to their effectiveness. They may have been appropriate one year, and yet five, 10, 15, 20 or 100 years later they still carry on, in my view without enough review and without enough of a look by either the executive council or by the Legislature.

I want to say we are pleased to support the particular bill and I want to make note of that particular amendment that was accepted and I congratulate the minister for accepting the amendment and for sharing that view I put forward that makes sense. In this particular case it is within five years that this program must be reviewed, if it is to carry on.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 21, An Act to amend the Ministry of Revenue Act;

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Travel Industry Act;

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Ontario Unconditional Grants Act;

Bill 51, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act,

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Theatres Act;

Bill 55, An Act to amend the Upholstered and Stuffed Articles Act.

Bill 56, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Bill 58, An Act to amend the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act.

Bill 61, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 65, An Act to amend certain Acts administered by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Bill 81, An Act to amend the Election Finances Act.