Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Sorbara: Today representatives of the group Vaughan Cares are here at Queen's Park to express their concern about the provincial government's refusal to listen to their concerns about the possible expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site, in the community of Maple in the city of Vaughan.

People are concerned about the potential environmental impact on the Oak Ridges moraine, on the headwaters of the Don River and on the surrounding community, which, by the way, is now almost entirely urbanized.

The people of our community feel a profound sense of betrayal by the NDP government, and particularly by the Minister of the Environment, on the question of garbage dumps. During the election campaign the NDP promised that no existing dumps would be expanded and that no new dumps would be created without a full environmental assessment. The Premier himself made that commitment on the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site in Vaughan.

Now the Minister of the Environment says and has said publicly in this House that she is prepared to use her emergency powers to expand Keele Valley, with no environmental review of any kind whatsoever and with no input from the people who live in the area and would be affected by such use of emergency powers.

Moreover, the government introduced legislation to allow the Ottawa region to decide whether or not to accept garbage from other communities, but it will not give the people of York region that power. That is unacceptable to the people of York region. They have taken their fair share of garbage, and when the dump is filled in 1993, it should be closed, full stop.

PURPLE LOOSESTRIFE

Mr Cousens: Many members in this House will have on occasion made use of the Ontario road map. I have a copy here. It is the official road map of Ontario, comprehensive in every way, with legends and cities and towns of the whole province, printed on 50% recycled paper with vegetable-oil-based ink, very environmentally sound indeed.

You can also see the picturesque setting on it. It is a picture on Highway 17 near Wawa and you will see campers going out and mountains in the background. Again, a lovely scene. It is not just right. If you look at it a little more closely, in this picture instead of just beautiful mountains and roadside flowers, you will notice the purple flowers and you will say, "My goodness, that is lovely." But is it as lovely as you think? It is purple loosestrife, one of the most devastating plants stalking Ontario's wetlands, right here being advertised on our road map.

According to the recent report of the standing committee on resources development, purple loosestrife grows so densely that it becomes an aggressive invader to all other vegetation in our wetland habitat. In fact, witnesses in the committee described the impact of this pretty purple flower as disastrous to native vegetation. The committee recommended that the plant be considered a noxious weed and that its elimination should be a top priority of the government.

I submit that we have identified one area where the purple loosestrife should not be displayed and that is certainly on a road map. We should do everything we can to get rid of it.

JUMELAGE DE WHITBY-LONGUEUIL

M. White : En 1967, plusieurs groupes religieux et communautaires de Whitby ont pagaye en canot jusqu'a Montreal pour l'Expo 67. Ces groupes avaient ete accueillis par le maire de Longueuil. Selon sa suggestion, les deux municipalites ont passe des accords et sont devenues officiellement jumelees.

Dès 1969, les celebrations de ce jumelage ont eu lieu annuellement. Ces deux villes se joignent pour apprendre et partager ce qu'elles ont en commun. La ville de Whitby a beaucoup profite de cette experience. Le drapeau de Whitby, par exemple, provient de ce jumelage. Cette fin de semaine, la ville de Whitby recevra des representants de Longueuil pour la 23e celebration de leur jumelage.

Monsieur le President, j'espère que notre Assemblee en prendra connaissance et qu'elle applaudira l'initiative que ces deux villes ont prise. Je sais qu'en accueillant les representants de Longueuil, j'aurai le soutien de tous les membres de l'Assemblee.

TAXATION

Mr Kwinter: We are now less than three weeks away from the NDP government's implementation of its tax on auto workers. The Treasurer had promised that he would make an announcement by 10 June on whether or not he would revise or revoke this gas guzzler tax.

On 16 May the Treasurer agreed to set up a working group to look at this tax. Noticeably, this group did not include any representatives from the environment community nor a representative from the Ontario Automobile Dealers Association. However, both these groups have made representation to the Treasurer on their suggested revisions for this tax.

The Treasurer has had wide input on how to make this tax more fair and equitable and still provide the desired environmental incentives for fuel-efficient vehicles. The Treasurer has been given input on how he can do this without devastating the auto industry. The Treasurer knows that all this tax will result in is lost jobs by auto workers. Even Bob White agrees that this tax will hurt the auto industry.

The Treasurer made a commitment that he would make a decision on this unfair tax by 10 June. There are hundreds of jobs in limbo, waiting for the Treasurer's decision. It is now 12 June. When will we hear from him on this very important matter?

1340

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Cunningham: On 31 May the Minister of Education announced the school capital allocation for 1994-95. Every board that was lucky enough to receive notification of provincial grants will be going to the bank to obtain bridge financing as the provincial dollars will not flow for another four years. Otherwise, poor management by the provincial government now forces school boards to borrow and go into debt as well.

Communities across the province need new schools now and therefore the local taxpayer once again will have to absorb the additional financing costs. Many boards were disappointed that they did not receive capital grant approvals. They will have to wait yet another year.

My constituents back in London are beginning to ask where all their tax dollars are going. The answer is simple. We are spending the money on provincial debt interest. The $9.7-billion deficit will cost Ontario taxpayers an additional $2.5 million in interest payments a day. At that rate, we could build an elementary school every three days. The total debt, $51 billion, amounts to $13 million in interest payments a day or the cost of building a secondary school every other day.

The bottom line is that the more the province spends on debt financing, the less the province will have to spend on programs such as education and health care.

I urge the government to rethink its decision to double the provincial debt to $77 billion by 1994-95 before it is too late. What a terrible example for our children.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Malkowski: I rise today to congratulate the Minister of Housing on the introduction of the Rent Control Act, 1991. The people in my riding of York East have been waiting a long time for real protection from large and arbitrary rent increases.

I am particularly proud that as part of the minister's efforts to inform the tenants of Ontario about this legislation, he will be visiting my riding this coming Monday, 17 June. This town hall meeting is open to everyone. I encourage the members to encourage their constituents to attend my meeting and also meetings held in their own areas. The people of York East will be meeting at 7:30 at the East York Collegiate Institute auditorium, 650 Cosburn Avenue, and we invite members to join us.

PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Ruprecht: Today, Canadians of Philippine heritage will be celebrating the 93rd anniversary of a free, independent, democratic Republic of the Philippines.

In recognition of the important contributions that Canadians of Filipino heritage have made to the economic development and, I might add, the cultural enrichment of our province and country, the blue, red and white flag of the independent Philippines was raised this morning at Toronto city hall. These Philippine colours have become an international symbol of the indomitable spirit of democracy and serve as an inspiration to us all to strengthen the bonds of friendship, respect and affection we have for the Filipino community.

With us in the gallery today to help us celebrate this historic event is the new consul general of the Philippines, Mr Montesa, and his staff, the president of the National Congress of Filipino Canadians, Mel Catre, and Rick Falco, the outgoing president of the National Congress of Filipino Canadians.

CHRONIC FATIGUE AND IMMUNE DYSFUNCTION SYNDROME

Mrs Witmer: I would like to call the members' attention to the urgent need for increased effort and funding from the Ministry of Health to help those individuals who suffer from chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome. This has also been referred to as yuppie flu.

What is it? It is characterized by general fatigue, reduces daily activity levels by at least 50%, and it usually persists for at least six months. There are over 40 symptoms associated with this debilitating disease.

This is a devastating illness which causes a great deal of pain and suffering to its victims. It is estimated that about 10,000 people suffer in this province, and this includes about 1,000 children who are unable to attend school.

I would urge the province to take immediate action to address three specific areas of concern.

The Ministry of Health should provide adequate funding for research.

The Ministry of Health must ensure that health care professionals are provided with more information about this disease. Currently, many individuals are improperly diagnosed for long periods of time.

Finally, all levels of government responsible for financial assistance programs must become better aware of the nature of the disease. Many of the people afflicted are forced to leave their jobs or abandon their studies, and it is important that those government agencies that provide social assistance programs recognize that this is a legitimate and debilitating disease. I would encourage the Ministry of Health to respond to their request for testing, assessment and treatment.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Owens: Yesterday, while reading the Globe and Mail Report on Business, I was struck by a comment made by Frank Stronach, a former Liberal candidate and chair of the giant auto parts maker Magna International Inc, with respect to establishing an auto parts manufacturing plant in Mexico.

Mr Stronach said: "Profit means money. Money has no heart, no soul, no conscience, no homeland." This quote, I believe, provides a kind of insight and philosophy that this government, while it is trying to help people, is fighting on the other side. I think with attitudes and philosophy such as are expressed in this newspaper, we are not going to move the social agenda any further ahead.

In Scarborough, I see people on a daily basis who are losing their jobs, who have to deplete their life savings and are being forced to line up for welfare. Our government is clearly trying to respond to these problems and the needs of our citizens, including those who are unable to find work. I am clearly proud of the accomplishments and steps this government has taken to try and alleviate the kinds of difficulties that are being caused as a result of the current free trade agreement and also further to the potential problems that we will have with the Canada-Mexico free trade agreement.

SENATOR DAVID CROLL

Mr Nixon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for the consent of the House to make a few remarks to mark the passing of Senator David Croll.

Agreed to.

Mr Nixon: There may not be many members of this House at present who have met the late Senator Croll personally, but he was a highly valued member of the community and for many years a member of this House and, I believe, the first Minister of Welfare, as it was then called, assuming office in 1934 with the election of the Hepburn government.

He came from Windsor and was elected as a young man with a commitment to progressive policies, which, unlike some of us more aging politicians, he was able to maintain throughout his long life. He died yesterday at the age of 92, as full of interest in public affairs and concern and support for the progressive aspects of public policy as he ever was.

He served faithfully in the Hepburn government until he had a substantial disagreement with the then first minister over labour policy. It involved what then was called a sit-down strike, I believe, involving General Motors in Oshawa. He left the ministry with the famous statement attributed to him that he would sooner walk with the workers than ride with General Motors, a sentiment that is echoed by everyone in this House, I am sure, with a few exceptions at the present time.

He always maintained a high degree of independence and left direct cabinet service later to sign up with the Canadian army in the Second World War. He went in as an enlisted person who was soon recognized for his ability and, I understand, received a commission in the field and served valiantly and, of course, loyally.

Upon his return, he entered federal politics after a period of time and had a remarkable career there, serving in many capacities, but perhaps the one that most of us remember is his membership in the Senate of Canada. Rather than taking that as some sort of comfortable sinecure much desired by many people in public life, he became extremely active indeed and undertook the review and leadership of a commission involving poverty, resulting in a famous report that is still a byword in reviews in these matters.

1350

As a matter of fact, it would be interesting for members to note that I received a personal letter from Senator Croll, and I answered just last night as I was doing my never-ending work, in which he was castigating me as interim leader for allowing the Liberal Party to strike off a large number of ex officio members of our party who normally participate in the selection of a leader. On reading his letter, I realized that a serious mistake had been made that he had brought to my attention, but I thought it was characteristic that even at the age of 92, he was fully aware of all of these matters and did not hesitate in the least to write his interim leader and tear a strip of his skin off.

I would also draw to the members' attention that the library has a recently published book on Senator Croll's life, and I would certainly recommend it to anyone interested in the work of this Legislature, which is recounted there in his experiences and his career going over these many years, a career of public service which I would say is truly exemplary. There was always concern for his constituents. There was always a substantial depth of support for progressive aspects of public policy that everybody in this House would find commendable.

His career is clearly an example of public service and a recognition of the true purpose of the democratic process to all of us. He has lived a full life, so we cannot be sad in that regard, but certainly we can be thankful for the example of service that he has left.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to be able to rise today to recount my experience in knowing Senator David Croll. He was a close personal friend of my family and I have known Senator Croll for many years. He certainly did not encourage me personally to go into politics. We chatted about political life, and he certainly chastised the things that went on in this Legislature, and the things that he had opinions on were strong and valid.

I was with Senator Croll but three weeks ago. I was in synagogue and I was driving him home afterwards, and I can say that in terms of the Jewish community, Senator Croll was undoubtedly a trailblazer. He did things that no one in the Jewish community had ever been able to achieve in public life before. He was a trailblazer and he was a man who certainly was revered by the community in which he lived. It gives me pleasure to be able to rise and say a few words about Senator Croll, who I did not know in any real political sense but I knew in a personal way. His passing is a loss. As the Leader of the Opposition said, his life was a full one and it was a life of great accomplishment on behalf of the Canadian people.

Hon Mr Cooke: I join with other members of the Legislature and on behalf of the government to express our condolences to the Croll family. I was actually in Windsor last night and this morning woke up to the news on the local CBC radio.

Of course, the death of Senator Croll is met with a great deal of sadness across the province but particularly in Windsor, because of the contribution this man has made to our community and the very progressive stands that he did take over the years, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, on poverty and labour issues. In fact, with people like Senator Croll and Senator Martin and other people from our community, one can understand why it took so long for the New Democratic Party to make the inroads that it made in Windsor eventually when the Liberal Party forgot its true roots.

I really do want to pay tribute on behalf of the government to this rather remarkable person who served, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, at the municipal level, the provincial level, in the federal Parliament and in the Senate. His was truly a remarkable life, and we really do join in celebration of this contribution to public life in Ontario and in Canada.

The Speaker: I wish to thank the members for their contributions. Their kind and thoughtful comments will be forwarded to the family of the late Senator Croll.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAND USE PLANNING

Hon Mr Cooke: Many people in this province believe that the public interest is not always served when land use planning and development decisions are made in their communities. Concerns about the relationship between private interests and those who serve the public interest persist. We on this side of the House have long held that a public inquiry into the land development process is an essential step in restoring public confidence in land use planning and, ultimately, in governments.

I am pleased to inform the House that this government is taking that step today. I am announcing on behalf of the government the establishment of a three-person commission of inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. The commission will examine all aspects of the system under which land use is planned and regulated in this province.

I have appointed former Toronto mayor John Sewell as chair of the commission. The two other commissioners are Toby Vigod, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, and George Penfold, an associate professor at the university school of rural planning and development at the University of Guelph. They are all up in the gallery.

The commission's mandate is to examine the relationship between public and private interests in land use development and to recommend ways that will entrench good planning into the system. We have asked the commissioners to look at the goals of the planning system and to recommend ways to improve the integrity, efficiency, openness and accountability of the land use decision-making process.

The thousands of women and men who work on behalf of the public on municipal councils across the province deserve to work in a system that reinforces the integrity they bring to the task. Good planning is essential to a high quality of life in our communities. Good planning is environmentally sound and responsive to the public's views, and good planning is efficient planning. The cumbersome and often adversarial development approvals process which drains public and private resources must be improved.

The commissioners will consider the role of the provincial and municipal policy in achieving fair and consistent land use practices. They will consider the roles and relationships elected officials, administrators, developers, interest groups, the Ontario Municipal Board and the public should have in the land use planning system. They will look at how the structure of the development industry affects the ability of the provincial and local governments to protect the public interest.

This government has also asked the commission to recommend how the planning system can support provincial priorities in environmental and food land protection. The commissioners will examine whether the current rules controlling development help the province reach its planning goals. They will also look at the impact municipal financing and large infrastructure projects have on local planning and the development decisions.

We must also stress what the commissioners will not do. They cannot and will not investigate specific accusations of wrongdoing or corruption. That is the job of the police and the courts, not this commission.

The commission will look to the future, looking at what legislative and policy changes are needed to improve the way land use decisions are made. The commission will operate in an open and informal way, consulting the public and seeking consensus among parties who have often disagreed in the past. I have asked the commission to submit an interim report one year from now and a final report in two years.

While this commission does its work, development and redevelopment will continue to be vital to the prosperity of this province. Ontario's population will continue to grow, as will the need for homes, places of work and places of recreation. The province and municipal governments will continue to make planning decisions. For example, more than 100 municipal official plans will be revised or developed over the next two years.

1400

In our announcement in Grey county earlier this session, the government demonstrated its commitment to ensuring that land use decisions are guided by environmentally sound planning principles. In York region, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is working with the region to ensure that future expansion of urban boundaries is guided by a comprehensive regional official plan.

In the future, this ministry and my cabinet colleagues will continue to promote planning in the public interest, whether it be related to the Oak Ridges moraine, Harbourfront, the Toronto port lands, wetlands policy, the motel strip in Etobicoke or area-wide strategic plans.

I said this inquiry was a necessary step in restoring public confidence in planning and development practices in Ontario. Allow me to remind the House of two other steps this government has already taken in that direction.

Earlier this year, I appointed a committee to review the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, and I hope to bring in improved legislation this fall. We also tightened election finance rules covering contributions to municipal candidates and improved their enforcement provisions.

For too long provincial governments have been unwilling to show leadership in protecting the public interest in planning decisions. I want members to know this government takes its planning responsibilities seriously. I believe this announcement today demonstrates that.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Hon Ms Carter: I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House about a package of new and enhanced energy-efficiency initiatives which the Ministry of Energy will launch this week.

As honourable members are aware, the government has set a new energy direction for Ontario. It is one that emphasizes the need to conserve energy and use it more efficiently. Our goals are to protect the environment, to reduce energy costs for the people of Ontario and to reduce the province's reliance on nuclear power. Since last fall, the government has moved decisively to give effect to this new energy direction.

We called upon Ontario Hydro to intensify and accelerate its efforts in conservation and in controlling demand for energy. The utility's spending on conservation will increase next week to approximately $232 million and over the course of this decade will total more than $3 billion.

With the introduction of amendments to the Power Corporation Act, we are now also taking steps to enable Hydro and the government to work together more effectively to achieve the province's energy-efficiency goals.

We are continuing to expand regulations under the Energy Efficiency Act, which sets minimum energy-efficiency performance standards for new appliances and energy-using products sold in Ontario. By bringing more products under the regulations, we will be making this one of the most effective pieces of legislation of its kind.

We are putting our own house in order. Ontario Hydro will carry out energy audits on nearly 8,000 government buildings and facilities across the province. These audits will provide the basis for an extensive program of energy-efficiency improvements that will greatly reduce energy consumption in government buildings.

I might point out that in the short time since we announced this program, Hydro has audited 780 government buildings. The Ministry of Government Services and our ministry have already moved on to the next step, which is to draw up a plan to carry out the improvements that the audits recommend.

These initiatives are just the beginning. The additional allocation of $10 million provided to our ministry in the April budget allows us to increase our energy-efficiency activities by almost 75% in the current fiscal year. As a result, the ministry is expanding many of our current programs as well as adding new ones.

It is my pleasure to outline some of our plans in the House today. Our programs constitute an unprecedented drive towards an energy-efficient Ontario. They also constitute an action plan for placing immediate resources into energy conservation and efficiency and for producing tangible results.

Our aim is a basic change of attitude towards energy use, a change that enables Ontarians to reap both the environmental and economic benefits of energy efficiency. To that end, we are stepping up activities to encourage and promote energy efficiency across the board: in our homes, schools, offices, hospitals, factories, cars, wherever energy is used.

We are taking a number of steps to help Ontario industries become more energy-efficient, reduce their energy costs, improve energy productivity and thus become more competitive. We are expanding the scope of our energy audits for large industrial energy users. We are providing new grants to help industry with the purchase and installation of non-electrical, energy-efficient equipment in industrial plants. We will hold regular competitions that will accelerate market acceptance of new energy-efficient technologies manufactured by Ontario companies.

Our energy-efficient communities program will encourage communities themselves to identify what needs to be done to help people save energy in their homes and businesses. A pilot program will be established this year to identify these energy savings.

We are also giving greater attention to education. Our aim is to promote an energy conservation and efficiency ethic among students and teachers. We want to help them understand the impact of energy production and use on the environment and the economy.

For example, we will develop new energy curricula for students and teachers and we will help school boards to identify possible savings in energy in their operations. We will also work with education authorities to enhance school programs at such places as the Ontario Science Centre, the Kortright Centre for Conservation and Science North.

In transportation, the new initiatives include joint endeavours with the Ministry of Transportation. We will establish a ride-sharing program and help both the public and private sectors develop techniques for energy-efficient management of fleets.

These energy initiatives will help save the environment and help Ontarians cut energy costs. They should kick-start a whole range of business and manufacturing opportunities in the energy field.

I would like to point out that we developed these various programs in consultation with the ministry's client groups and we will implement them in partnership with those groups. Our program partnerships have been designed to encourage investment by others as well, thereby increasing the effectiveness of every dollar spent.

I need hardly remind the House that the government's financial resources are strained to the very limit as we fight the effects of the current recession. We cannot buy energy conservation even if we wanted to. The government's spending on these new initiatives is seed money, designed to work alongside spending on conservation and energy efficiency by municipalities, business and individuals.

Our spending on energy efficiency constitutes an investment of public money that will pay dividends to Ontarians for generations to come. Sharing the responsibility for funding allows the government to multiply the returns. It stimulates further spending and economic activity in a time of recession. It also drives home the point that we all share responsibility for reducing energy consumption and protecting the environment.

The implications of these new and expanded programs are far-reaching, but I would remind the House that this is one more step in our program for turning Ontario in a new energy direction. We will continue to work with the people of Ontario to develop policies and strategies that will help to ensure a more energy-efficient and a more energy-secure future.

1410

ADULT LITERACY

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am pleased to inform members of $31.8 million in funding for two adult literacy programs. This funding is part of my ministry's ongoing commitment to the Ontario Basic Skills and the Ontario Basic Skills in the Workplace programs throughout the province. Because learning is a lifelong endeavour, education and training must become an integral part of the work process. Education and training must be seen as fundamental to growth.

Of the total funding, $28.09 million will be allocated to Ontario Basic Skills and Formation de base de l'Ontario programs in 23 community colleges in 100 locations in the province. The Ontario Basic Skills program provides a broad range of training in reading, writing, mathematics and science to grade 12 equivalency as well as computer literacy, life skills and work adjustment skills.

Grants totalling $3.7 million will fund 18 Ontario Basic Skills in the Workplace programs. Funding will assist labour organizations, employers, employer associations and non-profit delivery agents to deliver training at over 250 work sites. The Ontario Basic Skills in the Workplace program provides funding for literacy, language training, basic numeracy and science, and other basic skills delivered in the workplace.

Literacy and numeracy skills are essential to personal and professional growth. Investment in people must be understood to be as important as investment in capital or in research and development.

RESPONSES

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr Sorbara: At first blush, the statement by the Minister of Municipal Affairs appears to be a face-saving device. Members will recall that in the last Parliament the member for York South, now the Premier, who does not come here much any more, regularly made rather wild allegations concerning the business of land development, particularly in the area of York region, and often called for a public inquiry. Now, having formed a government, his Minister of Municipal Affairs is creating an advisory committee to help him revise the Planning Act.

It is probably not a bad idea that the government continue along the business of making revisions to the Planning Act. I would have just two things to say about it.

First, under his predecessor, the Honourable John Sweeney, the former member for Kitchener-Wilmot, there was a great deal of work done towards the revision of the way in which we plan and develop our communities. Much of that work is available in his ministry, and I would encourage him to make that work available to these commissioners who will be offering advice to the minister some two years down the road.

Regrettably, if I understand the minister's statement correctly, what he is looking to do is to centralize planning in the hands of his own ministry and his own cabinet. What we were working on is to try and give more authority to local communities to develop the kind of livable communities that people in this province want and expect.

The other thing to say about this statement at this time is simply that a commission of inquiry or an advisory board into the business of planning and developing our communities is going to do absolutely nothing for the real problems which we face in this province, and those are that no houses are being built, no offices are being built, no factories are being built.

In fact, factories are being closed down, houses are not being sold, office space is not being rented. Thousands and thousands of construction workers in this province are looking forward to the day when this government takes one or two steps, at least, to get us back on the road to growth right around the province.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Elston: I am supposed to reply to the statement by the Minister of Energy. I can tell members this is one of the biggest wastes of energy that I think I could ever find or contemplate anyplace, because this is just a rehash of several other statements of principle these people have tried to sell as a new direction.

A good number of these areas we were already working on as a government ourselves. We can understand that sometimes the Minister of Energy, the member for Peterborough, must get her name in the paper, particularly if the Liberal task force on the budget is visiting her home town. Perhaps that is why she decided to go through this dialogue in repetition of several areas of activity.

I would like to know why it was so important to make a statement today that is devoid of any details about what is being spent on any of these programs. Why did she not tell us where the extra $10 million in her budget was going to be allocated and how those programs were going to be formulated, rather than again providing a diary of her items to work on? This is a ghastly interruption of the business of the House to serve the member for Peterborough and her need to generate some kind of press. I wish she had saved our time and her energy and just got on with her work.

ADULT LITERACY

Mrs McLeod: I would like to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Education. I would understand that this announcement is an indication of an increase in the total funding for literacy programs in the province, although the minister has not really indicated that. If it is an increase, it is certainly welcome, because I think we would all concur that literacy continues to be extremely important for people to be able to take part in the mainstream of community life in this province, and it is ever more important as the levels of skills that are needed for finding a place in the workforce get higher and higher.

I guess I would wonder whether the training that is going to take place at 250 work sites in the province is going to be geared to the kind of skills that are needed for people to take part in what will be a very restructured business and industry setting in Ontario, or whether the funds have been geared to those communities in particular where recession has meant a lot of job dislocation and where retraining is so desperately needed.

I would also ask the minister -- the question was asked by our colleague the member for Cornwall on 13 May about the cancellation of a pilot project -- whether this means this funding will now be renewed and that pilot project can be refunded?

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to respond to the statement from the Minister for Municipal Affairs. Most of the things he is saying in this statement are what we all agree with, that we need good planning, but I have a problem with why we need another commission. If the ministry were doing its own job it would not need this; all the ministries would not. They would not need a commission like this if they were doing their job right.

We are going to spend more money on another commission. I wonder how many people we are going to lay off in this ministry that we will not need now it is going to have somebody else doing its jobs for it.

He also mentions Grey in here, and I would like to tell him about that, but I know if I do that the members will throw me out, so I will quit right now.

Mr Cousens: If this were going to be the kind of commission that the Premier promised, then we would have something to be pleased with, but we had from 1 October till now, and what we have received today is far less than what the Premier indicated we would be receiving.

I want to just comment as well that when the government has this review under way, what changes will be allowed to the Planning Act? Certainly, we have a need for more serviceable land in the province, and I can see the government hiding behind this commission while we are looking for more serviceable land. It will use this as an excuse not to do anything with it.

I ask the question: Were they weasel words when the Premier said on 8 September that there would be an investigation into land transactions and he would look into the relationship among developers, politicians and government officials? Or are they weasel words today when he says the commissioners cannot and will not investigate specific accusations of wrongdoing or corruption? Where are the weasels?

I think what we are seeing today is that the government is trying to hide behind something that it is saying is criminal, but there are other things that are on the edge of the law where people's confidence has been shattered and broken. We are talking about big, backroom brokers of power who are involved in land transactions. We are seeing large developers, and there is a distrust in the system and this government is not, through this investigation, attacking the kernel of the problem. What we are seeing is a smokescreen. We are seeing the government standing back, saying, "Well, we're going to do something." It started off with the right words in the beginning, but the implementation and the process it is following fail totally from the plan the Premier asked for when he asked for an inquiry into situations in York region. This does not begin to accomplish it.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Runciman: There are a lot of scary things happening in this province under the socialist government. Perhaps one of the scariest things is having a group of ideologues take control of Ontario Hydro. We have antinukes. We have people who are in effect Hydro-haters, if you will, who are taking control. We now have amendments to the Power Corporation Act that are going to, in effect, politicize Ontario Hydro.

The government's real effort in terms of conservation in this province is to kill off the industrial sector. That is what is happening. We are seeing a drop in demand for electricity in this province because of what is happening in the manufacturing sector of this province because of the government's policies.

When we look at nuclear energy, when we look at what is happening with respect to acid rain in this world really, in the ozone layer, this government -- with its minister and cabinet ministers and the people they are stacking the Ontario Hydro board of directors with -- is not really addressing that problem. They are operating on ideology.

We want to take a look at nuclear energy. I served on the select committee on energy and I know its benefits; I know what it means to this province. I know what it means in terms of attracting new investment and creating jobs in this province.

It is a scary prospect, and we are going to be watching very closely and fighting every move with respect to damaging, in a long-term way, Hydro's production in this province.

1420

ADULT LITERACY

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education today and say we always welcome adult literacy programs, whether they be in the workplace, which of course I think is the most efficient way of doing it; whether they be in the colleges; or whether they be in school boards. Basically they should be in communities. At this time we do not have enough information with regard to the announcement, except to say that we hope the use of the tutors as volunteers will also be seriously considered and utilized by the Minister of Education, and that she give further consideration to the adult basic education classes in school boards and try, in fact, to use those to her best advantage as Minister of Education. The workplace we support, and we congratulate her for her decision.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr Nixon: To the Minister of Community and Social Services: Her statement to the gathering of day care workers this morning made it clear once again that she intends in no way to assist commercial day care with the special provisions of providing pay equity, in spite of the fact that the salaries paid in commercial day care are generally lower than those in non-profit, even now.

Since the minister must be aware that a third of the day care places in the province are provided on a commercial basis, although very rarely on a profit basis, would she not be aware that her decision is essentially going to destroy that community service? If she agrees that is at least partly going to happen, what is she going to do to replace those much-needed community services without a substantial increase in her budget?

Hon Ms Akande: I must correct some of the assumptions or presumptions that have been made by the member in the question. First of all, I have not made any conclusion about the discussion that is going on. We have re-emphasized, as we have many times before, that this government, like the previous one, does have a preference for non-profit child care. In terms of its direction, that is certainly what our intention will be. However, I have also emphasized, as I did this morning, that consultations, discussions with various groups, are going on. We have been designing a paper that goes out for consultation, which will speak to the revision of the child care system.

What are we planning to do in terms of our non-profits? We are looking at a non-profit child care system throughout Ontario, and the consultation paper is being designed around that.

Mr Nixon: The minister has responded somewhat more positively than she has in the past in this regard, and yet she has made it clear that it is the intention of the government in most of the facilities she supports through her ministry not to undertake the support of anything that might be considered commercial in any way.

We have received copies of letters that have been sent to her, and some directly to us, that would indicate day care facilities in Sharon, Oshawa, Brampton, Hamilton, Weston, and in other communities are going to be closing and have closed because of the minister's policy. While she may have tried to allay fears through her comments, which I was very glad to hear, would she not understand that the people who are providing these facilities on a commercial basis are planning to close, and that we are going to lose between a quarter and a third of these facilities unless she is prepared to assist them in meeting the requirements of the pay equity laws as those regulations come into play for these particular facilities?

Hon Ms Akande: Certainly I do want to stress that there has been no change in the funding, that in fact this government continues to fund the child care sector as the previous government did. No new for-profit child care centres have been given any direct operating grants; only those that were in place as of December 1987 got 50% of the grants, and that was as the previous government designed it. The subsidies still go to the non-profit sector as well as to the profit sector.

The concern about making sure that there is child care in place for parents and good child care for children continues to be there, and so our area offices continue to monitor the system and the changes that may occur in that system and to offer support where in fact that support may be received and taken up and used to maintain the system.

Mr Nixon: The minister in her statement on long-term care yesterday indicated that the government was only going to maintain the previous levels of care for commercial nursing home facilities across the province and not allow those to undertake any expansion. This is similar to her approach to day care, and it reflects what the New Democratic Party has said over the years: that it would move to eliminate the commercial aspects of these services.

Whoever might feel that is an appropriate goal, and I am not one of them, would the minister not realize the practical aspects, that she does not have the clout with the Treasurer, who is absent right now, and in fact even if she did, the Treasurer does not have the resources to replace those commercial facilities with those non-profit facilities that would be operated either directly or indirectly by the ministry or this minister? But what is she going to do to see that these services are maintained as a result of these policies, which are not in the best interests of providing the services?

Hon Ms Akande: I think that the member presumes too much. This government has no intention of putting any facility out of business. Our concern is simply focused on the question of the direction of government dollars towards a non-profit system. It is not our intention to directly put any system at all out of business.

The other thing is that our concern for the child care system is once again, and I will repeat, to ensure that there is child care in place and that parents have a system they can feel certain does not put their children at risk.

One thing we have to be certain of, in conclusion, is that we must maintain what is in the system, both for seniors and for child care, while we change it.

Mr Nixon: In spite of the minister's protestations this afternoon, these facilities are closing, and she must be aware of that.

1430

TAXATION

Mr Nixon: I would like to direct a second question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In an interview printed in the Financial Post, the minister indicated the government might be considering harmonizing the GST with the provincial sales tax, and he is quoted as saying: "Everything is on the table. I haven't ruled out anything."

Since the Treasurer and the Premier have responded following the minister's comments and since they are both absent, perhaps the minister might clarify that situation for the benefit of the taxpayers of the province, who were under the impression that the NDP was going to stop the goods and services tax somehow.

Hon Mr Pilkey: Quite frankly, I welcome the question. The issue of taxation was referred to, I believe, in a statement by the Treasurer all the way back into March when he sent it to the Fair Tax Commission. But to add clarity specifically, in addition to that, on the issue of cross-border shopping, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, there are any number of organizations or individuals who have expressed concerns and ideas on how this very difficult circumstance might be resolved, and many of the suggestions offered had to do with tax fields. My indication to the media simply was that we have received all of those ideas, we would consider all of those ideas and we would finalize our views on that subsequent to the meetings we are going to be having with the federal government and the mayors of border communities.

While we have invited suggestions and will consider them, it is the position of the government that it is not its primary goal or wish to harmonize GST with the PST or to reduce provincial sales tax. It is in that context that the comment was offered, and I hope that brings some added clarity to the circumstance of the apparently conflicting views on the situation.

Mr Nixon: I do not normally support the cabinet ministers opposite, but I did feel that Otto Jelinek did not treat the Ontario Minister of Revenue in a very fair and equitable way when he said, "You either harmonize or we will not co-operate with Ontario at the borders in assisting in cross-border shopping."

Mr Runciman: She was a sweetheart too.

Mr Nixon: Yes. As somebody said, "He's such a brute," and I would not say that our minister is totally an angel. She no doubt, according to reports, put up quite a fight. But it really amounts to blackmail in this regard.

Since the minister has drawn back from the prospect of harmonizing by way of going in with the GST, then his reference to harmonizing must be to expand the base of the provincial sales tax to include such things as haircuts and dry cleaning. Since he has said, "I have not taken anything off the table," would he care to comment on his role in tax policy in this regard?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Only to say that I think it is only fair and reasonable, when you seek suggestions and offers of assistance from people, that you at least consider what they offer. That was the context in which I made my comment. I must be very clear, though. At this point in time, it is the position of this government not to harmonize those taxes.

Mr Nixon: It just recalls that long-forgotten Agenda for People. The NDP was elected on the basis of the following statement: Ontario should lead a tax revolt, a revolt against the Mulroney GST. The taxpayers are remembering that, but obviously this government does not.

Would the minister care to comment on his approach and that of the Minister of Revenue, his seatmate, who are going to Ottawa, cap in hand, presumably trying to get some of that extra money that is accruing to the federal Treasury and in that regard being prepared not only to forget their rejection of the GST, but apparently to participate in it in some way that is rather vague and strange now, but apparently a part of emerging government policy?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member will forgive me. I was interrupted when his question was coming forward and I am not sure I understood the total context of it. But I understood the concern being raised, that the federal government has collected some $400 million in excess of its projections with respect to the goods and services tax, although I believe Mr Mazankowski indicated that he was not prepared to turn any of that back into the economy, that he wanted to wait until the balance of the year to see whether this was not just some temporary aberration and to see whether this would not even out.

I would join the Leader of the Opposition in encouraging the federal government to return some of those overcollected taxes back to the people of Ontario, and in fact the people of Canada, to help buoy up the economy and to encourage additional spending.

VISITOR

Mr Martin: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise to ask this House this afternoon to reflect for a moment on how fortunate we are in this country to be able to speak out, organize and run for public life without threat to our person or family.

I met this morning with Jorge Morales, past secretary-general of ANDES, the teachers' union of El Salvador. He is with us in the members' gallery this afternoon. I hold him and his colleagues up to you today as people of great courage and commitment.

Mrs Marland: I would think by now you would know what a point of order is.

Mr Scott: Does this guy understand we are in question period?

The Speaker: One moment. First, I beg the indulgence of the House for a moment. You will note two things: first, that it is not possible for the Speaker to know what particular item is being raised as a point of order until the Speaker hears it; and second, noting that it would not likely be a point of order, I stopped the clock. We will add 30 seconds back on to the clock and go back to our regular business. I did keep an eye on how much time was being utilized, and the 30 seconds recoups the time.

Mr Elston: Just on that point, Mr Speaker: It is quite clear that the rules state that we are not to use points of order to introduce guests. This is a very important guest and we appreciate his presence. It should have been done, however, at a time immediately prior. That having been taken into consideration by all the members here, it should be clear that you are not supposed to do that and it should not happen again. There should be some request made, I think, to deal with people who decide they are going to breach the standing orders. Perhaps you would look into that, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This is a chamber without air-conditioning, and hence many members are causing the temperature to rise. If members would relax for a moment, I can address the point of order raised by the member for Bruce. He indeed raises a valid point of order, and I would draw to the attention of all members that we do have a certain procedure with respect to introducing special guests and visitors. I would really appreciate it if all members could maintain that precedent.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am sure that all of this discussion is quite impressive to somebody.

An hon member: Not you, right?

The Speaker: Not me, and not likely our visitors. May we proceed? I think we are ready for a leadoff question from the third party.

1440

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Carr: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services, who is also the Solicitor General. He will have read with horror one of the daily papers today, and I will read him some of the story:

"Two women have been viciously beaten by men previously jailed for assaulting them, Metro police say. "A man on an unescorted temporary pass while serving a six-month sentence for assaulting a woman in April beat her again...police say."

In the throne speech of November, on page 9, the minister's government said, "We will deal resolutely with violence against women and children." My question is very simple. What is the minister going to do to eliminate incidents like this in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: I was just informed a little while ago that the parolee who was referred to in the article was not in fact granted parole and was in the Guelph Correctional Centre at the time of the beating and is no longer a suspect. The police continue to investigate.

Mr Carr: The problem we have is, of course, they talked about two incidents. Those are the circumstances we have. We are talking about two incidents.

In the throne speech, this government said it would deal with violence resolutely. The fact is, regardless of who did it, there has been violence committed against women, disgusting violence is being committed, and as the Solicitor General, he is responsible for that.

During the speech by the acting minister responsible for women's issues, she said: "Clearly many women are not safe in our own homes or on the streets of the communities. The situation is urgent and demands constant attention by all public policymakers."

When is the government going to bring in some legislation that is going to end this mindless, senseless violence against women in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: There is so much in the member's statement, but let me first say that if he is talking about the temporary absence program, the first fundamental of a temporary absence program is public safety. At the same time, we do attempt to have programs that are designed to rehabilitate.

Let me educate the critic for a moment. This program was introduced, by the way, by the Conservatives way back under Larry Grossman. It has been a program that has been defended by Frank Drea, Gordon Walker and Larry Grossman.

Before an individual is released, certainly it has to be adjudged by psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers and correctional case managers. For 17 years, Conservatives have worked with this program. For five years, Liberals have worked with this program. For eight months, New Democrats have worked with the program.

For the supplementary, I will reserve some of the additional information about this particular program for the member.

Mr Carr: On 10 April my colleague talked about an issue where a sexual assault individual who had raped a 12-year-old was put back out on the street. On 10 April we raised that issue. To date nothing is being done.

The violence being perpetrated against women, regardless of who does it, has got to stop in this province. I asked the Solicitor General earlier -- and I do not want to hear what has gone on in the past -- what they are doing, according to this throne speech, to resolutely deal with violence against women and children in the province. What are they going to do, what concrete steps are they going to bring in in the province so this does not happen, so the scum perpetrating crimes like this do not continue on in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: The member really should decide who he wants to address his question to, but I will answer his question.

In terms of violence against women, I want to take this opportunity --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Farnan: I wish to take this opportunity to express, I believe, on behalf of myself, and probably all members of this House, the extraordinary leadership that has been demonstrated by the minister responsible for women's issues in Ontario.

There has been an extraordinary increase in funding for crisis shelters, for victims' services. The expansion in funding in this particular year I would say goes beyond anything that has been experienced under either of the two previous administrations. Women in Ontario are certainly much more of a priority with New Democrats than they have ever been under Liberals or Conservatives.

Mr Jackson: It was these socialists who blocked the victims' bill of rights from going to the standing committee on administration of justice. That is their commitment.

Mr Mills: That's a lie.

The Speaker: The member for Durham East will take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. No, the Speaker is not making comments on anyone's tie. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I am extremely upset, when it went to the standing committee on administration of justice and they walked out.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, the normal procedure in the chamber --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The normal procedure in the chamber is to simply say, "I withdraw the remark." I have not heard that yet.

Mr Mills: I withdraw.

CHILD CARE

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. There were about 500 child care workers and parents present today to bring to her attention concerns they have about her government's discriminatory policies against day care centres in this province, approximately 40% of all the day care provided in this province.

The minister has indicated her preference and her government's preference, but she said to a question in the standing committee on estimates on 12 February, recorded in Hansard, that her government was committed to establishing a fund to assist private centres to convert to private, non-profit centres. That is a matter of record. When I asked the Treasurer on 18 March about the existence of this fund, he was not only confused, he then clarified that it did not exist. The only financial commitment she had made was for the bump funding for pay equity for the non-profit private centres in this province. For the benefit of the House and those present here, which minister of her government was telling the truth about the existence of this fund?

Hon Ms Akande: I might report to this House that the ministers of this government tell the truth. We have, of course, always used the program development fund as a conversion fund. Those funds have been used by approximately 32 for-profit facilities to convert to non-profit facilities in the past, and those funds will continue to be used that way for those for-profit child care facilities that request to convert to non-profit.

Mr Jackson: In fact, no dollars actually transferred to these centres as a result of their conversion. What has happened is that she is simply lucky if she can even get someone to answer the phone in her ministry with respect to these conversions. As the member for Brant-Haldimand introduced to the House -- I have the same list -- dozens upon dozens of centres are closing and they are closing because of her government's policies of expropriation without any form of compensation.

It has been stated by her ministry staff that her government is planning to take the subsidized spaces in private, for-profit centres, remove them and hand them over to the non-profit sector. This will cause the bankruptcies of at least 75 to 100 centres immediately. I would like to ask the minister this question: Will the minister confirm to this House that she is planning to proceed with that plan at this time?

Hon Ms Akande: There is no decision by the government in place at this time to change the subsidies from for-profit to non-profit centres or to eliminate the subsidies from the for-profit. No direction of that type has been given by this government. No direction has been given to my ministry staff to make such a statement.

1450

Mr Jackson: It seems that we are getting one answer from the ministry, one answer from the Treasurer and entirely different answers from the minister responsible. We have documented calls of civil service staff who have indicated the communities in which these centres will be transferred, and the specific centres have been mentioned.

Perhaps they are not telling the minister what is going on, but when she asserts that her government has no intentions of putting these centres out of business -- I would have her know that Friday in the city of Kitchener, Angels Day Care Centre closed. They applied a month ago for support and assistance in the conversion and were flatly turned down by her ministry. Staff have been laid off; no seniority is being respected. The fact is that the minister refused to meet with these private operators and the workers they represent.

I have on my table 16,000 petitions, from every riding in this province, asking her government to cancel its discriminatory policies, stop discriminating against the 8,000 workers in this province, stop discriminating against the 85% of operators of day care centres who are women, who are losing their businesses, their life investment and in many cases putting their own personal home security at risk because of this government's policy. When will the minister reverse her policy? When will she sit down and listen to these operators to realize the devastation her policies are having?

Hon Ms Akande: Those are a number of questions and I will try to answer them all. One very important ideal is that when I want the correct information, I always go to the source. I cannot emphasize this much more directly than I am. What I have actually said is that this government has not given the bureaucrats any direction to change the subsidy from the for-profit sector to the non-profit.

In relation to the people at the child care centre to which the member refers, they refused to discuss unless we were willing to meet a certain dollar factor, which would indeed be considered unreasonable. As a matter of fact we monitored them, offered our services and provided appropriate care for the children, which is our primary and ultimate concern.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs McLeod: I also have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The minister indicated yesterday in her statement on long-term care reform that the government would move to match financial support to the actual care requirements of residents in homes for the aged and nursing homes. I ask the minister to advise us when this levels-of-care funding will be implemented, given the fact that the consultation paper is not yet released and the consultation is not to begin until the fall?

Hon Ms Akande: We have been monitoring the needs in that particular sector. We have begun to move, in particular municipalities and with particular groups, to rescue services in those areas. In response directly to the levels-of-care question, we are doing it. We have recognized our responsibility to maintain the system while we effect changes. We are doing it in this fashion in order not to initiate new beds where they are not necessary.

Mrs McLeod: This is no longer a question of maintaining the existing system. The existing system is in a state of crisis. Surely the minister will be aware that under the long-term care reform plans tabled by the previous government a year ago, it was intended to implement multilevel care funding by January 1992. I trust the minister is also aware that the Ontario Nursing Home Association has made a decision to cut its staff for nursing home residents in October if levels-of-care funding is not in place.

While the minister and her colleagues have spent this lost year debating ideologies, a crisis has built to a proportion where ultimatums are being issued. I ask the minister, since she is the lead minister for long-term care reform, to describe what she can do to protect the service now offered to residents in nursing homes, and whether she can provide us with a detailed implementation plan and a timetable for her long-term care initiatives.

Hon Ms Akande: It surprises me and concerns me, the degree to which the member responds to the crisis situation, which has been allowed to build over several years. We have inherited a crisis, and it is in relation to that crisis and in a manner appropriate to it that we are addressing it. We are addressing it by municipality. We are addressing it in relation to need and are responding through area offices in an appropriate way to ensure the levels of care. We have met and will continue to meet with those people.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr Sterling: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The minister may have heard my question yesterday regarding the Ottawa Senators national league franchise which they have been awarded for the 1992 season. He may also be aware that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is in opposition to the site for the Palladium in the city of Kanata, which I represent. However, if that arena site is approved, and I truly believe it is going to be approved, in spite of the interventions of the Minister of Agriculture, I wonder whether the Minister of Tourism would express his support for the Ottawa Senators here today.

Hon Mr North: The Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is very interested in any recreational sports body in this province. I am not in a position to support any professional sports organization within the province in this manner.

Mr Sterling: I am absolutely amazed that the Minister of Tourism and Recreation for this province is unwilling to support probably the major tourist attraction in Ottawa-Carleton. It leads me to the conclusion that this minister should resign if he is unwilling to support the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The Ministry of Agriculture and Food is spending somewhere between $1 million and $2 million of Ontario taxpayers' money to oppose the Ottawa Senators building in the city of Kanata. Can the Minister of Tourism tell me he is not willing to put in one cent, or even reply to my request that he will send an official of his ministry to the hearings to speak positively about the tourist impact it will have in the Ottawa-Carleton area? Is he not willing to do even that, in spite of the fact that the other minister is spending $1 million to $2 million to oppose the Ottawa Senators in eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr North: I am sure the honourable member on the other side of the House is well aware that this is in front of the Ontario Municipal Board and I am not in a very good position to speak on it at this time.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Morrow: I have a question for the Minister of Labour about the recently announced protection for retail workers. I have had several people in my riding ask me whether employees working in retail stores, including non-sales workers, managers and security guards, were covered by these announced amendments to the Employment Standards Act.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to thank the member for his question -- it is a valid one -- and let him and his constituents know that all employees working in retail stores, whether full- or part-time, have the right to refuse Sunday and holiday work and have an additional 36 hours provided.

Mr Curling: My question is to the minister of Sunday shopping. Recently, his government stated and explained the tourism criteria: "It will ensure consistency and fairness through the mandatory application of a province-wide standard." When we look at the different public opinions regarding the impact of tourist criteria, we will see that these criteria will be anything but consistent and fair. For example, the mayor of Windsor feels the guidelines would allow the whole city to open. Officials in Ottawa feel that local shopping malls will meet the criteria. Citizens for Public Justice, a coalition of groups opposing Sunday shopping, argues that the criteria will close most retail establishments on Sundays and other holidays. Other interested parties are unable to figure out what the real impact of the tourist criteria will be.

Can the Solicitor General tell the Legislature how he expects to develop consistency and fairness in regard to holiday shopping if municipalities responsible for implementing these guidelines cannot agree on what they mean?

1500

Hon Mr Farnan: I am very proud of the legislation that we have brought forward, for two reasons. First of all, the principles that are enshrined in the legislation are principles that we can all stand by and that we are all proud of.

The member, in posing his question, is quite right. One of those principles is to provide a sense of balance and uniformity both in application and enforcement across the province. That is why this government, unlike the Conservatives of the past, unlike the Liberals of the past -- Conservatives who refused to define what tourism was and Liberals who washed their hands of the issue -- has courageously said: "Here is the definition. Here are the provincial guidelines." This is how we will get that kind of uniformity.

Mr Curling: The Solicitor General has stated that this legislation is bold and is balanced and about the delicate balance that he has. He is so proud of this legislation that on Focus Ontario, he could defend it in this way: he agreed that the legislation will not protect the rights of workers. It has come to our attention now that his government is in the midst of privately developing special guidelines to understand this legislation he put forward. He wanted to help to interpret the tourism criteria announced last week.

What this amounts to is really guidelines upon guidelines. It clearly illustrates the government's lack of confidence in the tourism criteria. Today, given the government's inability to provide clear guidelines that will provide a consistent and fair tourist exemption system, we are once again hearing from the Solicitor General. We are going to ask him again, as I asked recently, will he withdraw his legislation or at least explain why it is necessary for him to have guidelines upon guidelines if he is so confident that his legislation will work?

Hon Mr Farnan: It seems so obvious that if, as the Liberals did, the provincial government simply washed its hands of the issue and said, "Look, we don't want responsibility; push it off to the municipalities and that is it," that would be irresponsible. Compare that to the very sound approach being taken by this government in developing provincial guidelines that can be applied by the municipalities, so that where there are legitimate tourist options -- and I stress legitimate tourist options -- they can be applied.

I am proud of the legislation. I am proud to carry it in this House, and this government is proud to bring it to the people of Ontario.

SCHOOL TRANSFER

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I was relieved to see that she approved the Essex county school accommodation agreement on Monday so that the people of Essex county can finally get on with their lives. However, we are somewhat surprised that her ministry will provide funds to the Essex County Roman Catholic Separate School Board to build two schools.

In 1989, former Minister of Education Chris Ward allocated money to build those two new schools, St Thomas of Villanova and Cardinal Carter, for $22 million. This government decided to intervene in January with the position that no provincial dollars would be allocated to build a new school while underenrolment existed in the public system. The Minister of Housing was quoted many times as saying, "The ministry made it fairly clear that building new schools is not an option."

Since the government's intervention, Essex county has been in turmoil, with angry protests, vandalism and, regrettably, the fire-bombing of a church. After all the crisis in Essex county in the last six months, the province will still build two new schools, as it intended to do back in 1989. Can the minister justify her decision to intervene last January, and does she feel responsible for the recent strife in Essex county?

Hon Mrs Boyd: As I have said a number of times in this House, we did not take away the option of building those two schools. The location that had been decided on by the Roman Catholic school board for that school was challenged by citizens before the Ontario Municipal Board. The OMB ruled against the site of the school, and the court upheld that ruling in the late fall of 1990. At the same time, the two school boards cancelled the agreement to share General Amherst District High School between the students of Villanova and General Amherst. That put the situation into a crisis, and that is the point at which we intervened. We never took the option of two schools off the table. What we said was that since that had been blocked by the OMB, we hoped the two boards would look at other options, given the drop in enrolment in the public system.

It is quite clear to the people of Ontario that both boards worked very hard over these months to try to come to a solution that would meet the needs in the locale, which was what we had requested: that they would work together to ensure the students of Villanova had a school on 1 September 1991 and that a resolution that would last in Essex county would be reached. We believe this has happened. The Roman Catholic school board has decided to sign off on its Bill 30 rights and the ministry has received a commitment from the public school board to study the space surplus.

Mrs Cunningham: I cannot respond to the agreement because I have not seen it, so I do not know what kind of a precedent this agreement will make. But I will repeat my earlier statement that the minister said one thing and the Minister of Housing said something else -- and it was very, very confusing for the committee -- in stating that the ministry had made it fairly clear that building new schools was not an option. That was not a very clear message to the community.

On 3 April, I asked the minister whether she intended to rule in accordance with clause 136v(2)(d) of the Education Act, and I will repeat it: "...in a community that has only one secondary school operated by the public board, that the secondary school will continue to be operated by the public board...unless the public board decides otherwise." Of course, General Amherst did clearly fit that description.

During the extensive hearings on Bill 30 and Bill 85, Richard Johnston, the former NDP critic, repeatedly stressed that in single-school communities, single schools have to be maintained. For the record, given that single-school-community clause in the Education Act and her party's long-standing policy, I have to ask the minister again, why did she feel it necessary to intervene with the mixed messages from her colleague in Essex county?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have explained why we intervened, and I do not intend to repeat that. From our point of view, it had nothing to do with the situation of community schools. The act is clear. The resolution is clear around community schools: "unless the board agrees." The board had agreed in one of the agreements that was reached, and reconsidered when there was such a loud outcry from the citizens in Essex county. Indeed, they were encouraged by their coterminous board to reject the agreement that was reached on 27 April. We maintain our position, which is consistent with that act: that unless a board agrees, the clause that affects community schools in single-school communities obviously comes into place.

1510

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Huget: My question is also for the Minister of Education. Recently the minister announced a $50-million fund for the multi-use of schools. School boards, I am sure, welcomed that announcement, and many are likely curious as to how they could access that very important fund. Could the minister please clarify to the House how school boards in this province can access the multi-use fund?

Hon Mrs Boyd: A number of school boards, in their capital forecasts, had indicated a desire to do work either with a coterminous school board or with a college or a community service. There was no leeway within the funding formula from the Ministry of Education to provide the capital dollars for either renovation or building to facilitate that.

What we are saying, given our strong commitment to interministerial co-operation around the use of community resources, is that we will develop the criteria. Those boards that have projects ready are already known to us. Those that do not will be given those criteria and will be able to apply under that part of the grants.

DEVELOPMENT IN EASTERN ONTARIO

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Under the former government, the Eastern Ontario Development Corp played a major role in encouraging the establishment of new businesses in eastern Ontario and in helping existing businesses to become more competitive. Yesterday I was with the Liberal budget tour in Kingston, where we heard a presentation from the Kingston area development commission. The commissioner who presented this to us was very upset that the NDP government had eliminated interest incentives for loans and guarantees under EODC assistance. This was done without consultation and with no notice.

We have heard the NDP say it has increased the provincial deficit to fight the recession. Will the minister please explain how this cutback in Eastern Ontario Development Corp assistance and funding will help the battered economy of eastern Ontario?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The action was taken as a result of the considerations of the budget, which as members opposite will recognize was already too high from their perspective. Interest incentives were deleted so that the number of dollars we had available for loans to companies in eastern Ontario, and in fact throughout the province, would not be reduced.

I will say, and I do hope it lends some comfort, that if there are examples in the Eastern Ontario Development Corp area where loans would be helpful, we still are prepared, on an individual, case-by-case basis where we deem it appropriate, to make that accommodation.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I really do think the people on the front lines -- and these are government agencies, boards and commissions that I am talking about -- would know what is going on here in Toronto. That is good news. But the people who are administering this certainly do not know that.

The minister will know that eastern Ontario does not have the same financial and economic base as the GTA. Support programs from the province are very important to these communities. They are trying to get new economic development to fight the recession in Ontario. The Kingston area development commission continues to work hard to find new business opportunities for this region. The minister knows that the Kingston area in particular must compete with the strong incentive programs of both Quebec and the northeastern United States.

Why has the minister decided to take away these interest incentive loans? The budget was passed on 29 April, and he is informing the House of this development today. What new measures has he taken to help the groups? I would ask him to be very specific, because these people want to know how they can help build Ontario and specifically eastern Ontario.

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, the alteration was not a significant one. We would be pleased to provide the member with a list of all the companies that have been assisted by the Eastern Ontario Development Corp -- as a matter of fact, the countless number of companies throughout Ontario that the Ontario Development Corp has assisted. The number is significant and the dollars invested are equally significant.

As I indicated, it was our hope to maintain, through the budget process, an amount of money so that loans would not have to be reduced or that fewer people would be rejected in terms of requests, and we have been successful in maintaining that amount. In terms of an adjustment, the incentive portion of it had to be adjusted. It was done, but I reiterate to the member, if there are individual circumstances where interest incentives will make the difference on a particular deal, we will bend the rule and make that exception.

WATER QUALITY

Mr J. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Today I have an easy question for the minister, and I would appreciate a complete response.

The minister would be aware that the Ministry of the Environment is amending regulations 305 and 310 of the Environmental Protection Act by changing the definition of sewage to include grey water as well as black water on boats. What is he doing, in his capacity as minister, to mitigate the obvious tourism impact that this legislation will have?

Hon Mr North: I would like to refer the question to the Minister of the Environment.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am not sure I can comment on the impact on tourism and recreation other than to indicate that people who are tourists and who wish to use the lakes for recreation are extremely concerned about the quality of the water. Many of the requests for us to look at the impact of boats that discharge grey water, as opposed to their sewage water, which now has to be contained, come from other boaters, come from cottagers, come from people who wish to enjoy the waterways of this province, and who wish to do their part to make sure those waterways have improved water quality in the future.

Mr J. Wilson: I am extremely disappointed that once again the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has demonstrated that he does not know anything about his portfolio. I have yet, as critic for the Ontario PCs, to get any answer out of this minister in question after question, and we saw it again in my colleague's question regarding the Ottawa Senators today. He does not know what he is doing. He really should resign.

None the less, he has referred it to the Minister of the Environment, and I would say to the Minister of the Environment that in a letter of this May from the Ontario Marina Operators Association that was sent to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, the association points out that the net benefit to tourism of overnight transient boating in Ontario is about $145 million a year, a substantial amount of money coming into the province from transient boating. It is clear the OMOA believes that the government -- and I appreciate pointing out to the Minister of the Environment the belief out there, certainly from the marina operators -- is going to move ahead with the grey water regulations regardless of what the Minister of the Environment hears in the current consultation process. The marina operators ask that the government negotiate with neighbouring Great Lakes jurisdictions to pressure them to adopt similar grey water legislation.

I want to know from the Minister of the Environment if today she will make the commitment to this Legislature that she will negotiate with those jurisdictions that border Ontario to lessen the effect of her grey water regulations on the tourism industry. It is an extremely important question. Will the minister give us that commitment today that she will undertake those negotiations?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me start by saying to the member that I completely reject the preamble to his question and the unfair comments that he has made about my colleague the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I think it is entirely appropriate that a question relating to a proposed regulation from the Ministry of the Environment be answered by the Minister of the Environment, and I am very happy to give that answer.

The regulation concerning the requirement that boats in Ontario waters be required to contain their grey water in a holding tank was sent out for discussion and consultation, and an indication that we were intending to move forward not this summer, but next summer, the summer beyond that with that regulation.

We have received, as the member has said, a lot of letters back, some very much in favour of what we are doing, some very concerned about the implications of it, and some with some very good points to make about, perhaps, suggestions such as the member has raised, or other modifications to the regulation. Let me assure the member that we are reviewing all of the submissions we have received. We are looking at all of the ideas and the suggestions that have come forward, and I will be happy to share our conclusions on that when they have been arrived at.

1520

SOCIAL WORKERS

Mr Fletcher: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I met recently with a delegation of social work professionals in my office to listen to their presentation regarding legislation governing those working in the social services. The question of this legislation is one that had been left unanswered by the previous government. In fact, the only time the previous government did anything is when the New Democrats were calling the shots. My question is whether the Minister of Community and Social Services intends to move in this area.

Hon Ms Akande: We have already begun to meet with many of the social workers and those people who are involved in social services. Let me come to some conclusion around this particular issue. Let me paint for the member the context in which this question exists.

There are three groups that are concerned about this legislation: social workers who are graduates of university, social service workers from the community colleges, and cultural groups that have counsellors who have filled the void when actual graduates have not existed. All three of those groups are to be covered somehow under some legislation. It is the direction of this particular government to come to some decisive end about what we will do with that.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Offer: I have a question to the Minister of the Environment with respect to the Britannia landfill site in my riding. As the minister knows, this site is going to be at capacity in the very near future. One option that she has before her is to expand the site under her emergency powers. To date, I have over 1,000 petitions by residents around the site that are calling for the minister not to expand the site under her emergency powers without a full environmental assessment hearing process.

My question is really of a two-part nature. First, will the minister do at least this by acknowledging that this is in fact one such option, as has already been indicated; and second, will she commit to the people of Mississauga North and, indeed, of the region of Peel that she will not exercise that emergency power -- expanding the Britannia landfill site without a full environmental assessment hearing process?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me tell the member, as I have so often told the members of this House, that there will be no long-term site for waste within the GTA or, in fact, anywhere, without a full environmental assessment. But as I have indicated on many occasions to the member, we may well find ourselves faced, as a result of the lack of planning and the lack of preparation that we inherited, with a short-term period in which the long-term sites will not be ready and we will run out of capacity in existing sites.

But I am very glad to be able to share with the House the news that, while the Britannia landfill site to which the member refers was expected to be filled early this summer, as a result of the very real efforts that have been made by the people in the region of Peel and the city of Mississauga the site will now be extended in its existing approval until March 1992. I know the very real concerns that the people around that site have about its future, but I have to say that in an emergency it is obviously one of the sites I would have to look at if we ran out of capacity within the GTA.

Mr Sorbara: I say to the Minister of the Environment, whose term as minister is quickly becoming an unmitigated disaster, that if there was no long-term planning going on when she assumed her responsibilities, there was no long-term planning when the now Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, stood at the edge of the Keele Valley landfill site, along with the NDP candidate, and said to the people of my riding that there would be no expansion, short-term or long-term, of that facility without a full environmental assessment.

He made that commitment to the people of my riding, and I want to tell my friend the Minister of the Environment that many people voted for the NDP candidate on the basis of that promise alone, and now I have thousands of petitions to present to the minister from those very people who want the Minister of the Environment to keep her promise.

Now I ask her, on behalf of the people in my riding, would she simply give us a commitment in this House that she will keep the word of the now Premier that Keele Valley will not be expanded, even for a short term, without an environmental assessment? Would she do that?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think, as the member well knows, at the time in which the statement that he refers to was made, and when he says, quite properly, no long-term planning had been undertaken, there was a very real fear on the part of the people in his community that the Keele Valley site would in fact become the long-term site for waste disposal within the GTA and there might not be an environmental assessment.

I repeat to him, as I repeated to his colleague, that a long-term landfill capacity will not be approved without an environmental assessment process, but, as I have said on many occasions, it is my responsibility to make sure that there is capacity until we find ourselves those long-term sites. We are doing that by waste reduction and aggressive waste diversion, which people all across the GTA are co-operatively participating in. But it is my responsibility to make sure that we have capacity, and if that takes an emergency power, then that is what I, reluctantly, will have to do.

PETITIONS

SOCIAL SERVICES

Mrs McLeod: I have a petition from the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers addressed to the Legislature of Ontario, which reads as follows:

"The undersigned demand that the Rae government act immediately to introduce a social work act for Ontario. Without this urgently needed legislation, every member of the public in Ontario, including those most vulnerable and disenfranchised, remains at enormous and unnecessary risk. Building a strong Ontario for tomorrow is dependent on protecting the children and families of today."

I share the sentiment of the petition. I have affixed my signature to it.

CHILD CARE

Mrs Marland: I have a petition to the Honourable Minister of Community and Social Services and the government of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, request that the minister take action immediately to rectify the further salary inequity announced January 31, 1991, for early childhood educators. We believe that the principles of freedom of choice, pay equity and non-discrimination form the backbone of our democratic society. Furthermore, parents must retain the right to select the day care of their choice."

This contains 68 signatures and I am very happy to attach my own signature to it.

ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARD

Mr Wessenger: Pursuant to standing order 35, I have a petition signed by 126 secondary school students in my riding asking the Minister of Education to rescind the decision with respect to this year's eligible graduating students to withdraw the Ontario Scholarship Award program.

LANDFILL SITE

Mr Sorbara: I have a rather long petition signed by several thousand people. I just want to get the text of the document. Mr Speaker, if there is someone else who wants to do a petition, I will just take a moment, if I could.

The Speaker: Petitions? Does anyone else have a petition? We will wait for the member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: I will dispense with the full text. I have here several thousand petitions from the residents of York region, from every corner of York region, addressed to the Minister of the Environment in the form of a letter. I also have a petition here signed by several hundred people who attended a demonstration opposing the expansion of the Keele Valley landfill site.

I note these petitions were gathered over the past month or so and they represent the anger of the people of York region about the possibility that the Minister of the Environment would consider expanding the Keele Valley landfill site without a full environmental assessment, which would be consistent with the promise the Premier made during the last election campaign.

I will send these over.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 10th report and moved its adoption.

Mr Runciman: This is our 10th report. Obviously, we are the busiest committee in this Legislature, and perhaps in the Legislature's history.

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

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr Hansen from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive The Big Sisters Organization of The Regional Municipality of Sudbury;

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc;

Bill Pr69, An Act to revive The May Court Club of Oakville;

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The London Foundation.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies Inc, be not reported, and your committee further recommends that the following bills be not reported, they having been withdrawn by the applicant:

Bill Pr35, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr64, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee further recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on the following bills:

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive The Big Sisters Organization of The Regional Municipality of Sudbury;

Bill Pr13, An Act respecting South Ottawa Services Foundation, Inc;

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the Wolfe Consortium for Advanced Studies Inc;

Bill Pr69, An Act to revive The May Court Club of Oakville;

Bill Pr71, An Act respecting The London Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Mr Hampton moved second reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Police Services Act, 1990.

M. Hampton propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 66, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1990 sur les services policiers.

Hon Mr Hampton: The purpose of this bill is straightforward. Under the system we have for dealing with police complaints, boards of inquiry are heard by individuals appointed by order in council for a fixed period of time. It can often happen that a panel member starts a board of inquiry within the term of his or her appointment, but the board continues, generally because of adjournments, after the term of appointment has expired.

The Police Services Act remedies this problem by making it clear that a panel member continues in office after the expiry of his or her term for the purpose of finishing any boards of inquiry which he or she has commenced.

This provision was not contained in the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, which was replaced by the Police Services Act on 31 December 1990. None the less it appears that when that act is read together with the Interpretation Act and the new Police Services Act, there is a strong legal basis to infer that members of boards of inquiry appointed under the old act may continue in office to finish boards of inquiry after their appointments expire.

However, because the issue could be raised in any one of the boards of inquiry started under the old act and not yet finished, and in order to avoid any delay and expensive litigation, the bill now before the House simply confirms that the very sensible provisions of the Police Services Act will apply to boards appointed under the old act. In this connection I should confirm that members of panels appointed under the old act would continue in office only for the purpose of finishing boards to which they were appointed before 31 December 1990.

There is no jurisdiction under this bill or under the Police Services Act to give these individuals any new assignments after 1 January 1991. As of that date, all boards of inquiry, whether dealing with events which took place before or after 31 December 1990, must be constituted under the new legislation and must be heard by panel members newly appointed pursuant to that legislation.

This bill is essentially a housekeeping bill to put into the Police Services Act provisions that probably should have been there in the first place. We feel that by placing these provisions in the act, we will provide greater certainty and avoid delay and some unnecessary expense. Therefore I commend this legislation to the House and ask all members to co-operate in its early passage in order that whatever uncertainty exists can be removed.

Mr Sorbara: I agree with the remarks of the Attorney General that the bill is non-controversial, that it is simply a housekeeping matter to ensure, as he says, that boards of inquiry can continue to do their work under the old act if they were established under the old act or under the new act if established under the new act.

It is good to see the Attorney General is bringing forward the motion. We are not going to get in the way of its speedy passage, although it is safe to say the act probably was not necessary. The kinds of concerns the minister said could arise are really on the very fringe of likelihood under a board of inquiry. But they have decided they want to do it, so we are going to support it. If the minister even wanted to have the third reading of it today, we would be willing to do that.

There is just one larger question that ought to be referenced here in conjunction with the consideration of this act. The minister, as the chief responsible for the administration of justice in the province, knows as well as anyone that in regard to his agenda to ensure our justice system meets the kinds of requirements as provided in the Askov decision, he as minister has not been living up to the expectations he created when some six months ago he said he would have the backlog cleaned up by the end of the summer.

It is not directly related, obviously, to the Police Services Act, but while we are debating one of his bills I just want to remind him it is not only this Parliament that is watching carefully to see whether the minister is going to live up to the guarantee he gave this House in the province about ensuring the court system provides speedy justice for all those concerned. I had an opportunity to be visited today by representatives from the Canadian Bar Association -- Ontario wondering what it is the minister intends to do in the area of court reform. That is another major area he should be directing his attention to.

1540

My friend the member for Burlington South has initiatives relating to victims of crime, and the Attorney General has said he was going to be getting on with those matters as well. We have not seen anything from the Attorney General that truly reflects what his government wants to do in the justice system. The previous Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, was very aggressive in the reforms he brought to the administration of justice in this province.

Hon Mr Hampton: Still trying to patch up relationships with judges.

Mr Sorbara: I want to tell the Attorney General, who is attempting to interject, that I honestly believe the reforms brought about by the member for St George-St David will stand as one of the truly progressive areas in the administration of justice. Indeed, it is interesting that my friend the Attorney General has, over the course of his first eight and a half or nine months as Attorney General, brought a number of projects to this House for our consideration. Virtually all of them were projects brought to a full state of maturity by his predecessor.

The truth is that there are many more things that need to be done in this province so we have a system of justice we are proud of. There are issues relating to access to the courts, issues relating to court reform, issues relating to the rights and responsibilities our citizens share and have in this province.

I await the day when my friend the Attorney General will do something other than bring forward a technical bill dealing with the Police Services Act; will do something more than bring to the House legislation that was the project of, the child of, the product of the work of his predecessor. I really do encourage him to complete that work, get all the stuff done that was there when he came to office. It was all pretty much good stuff, and very soon we are going to be considering one of those, Bill 40, the Mortgages Amendment Act. He has tinkered with it a little bit, and I think unfortunately so, but I plead with him some day before the expiration of his term to get on with some projects that really reflect his own government's view of the administration of justice and then we will have something we can debate more aggressively.

For my part, on the amendments to the Police Services Act, Bill 66, I say Fine. It is technical, not much turns on it. It will perhaps avoid one, possibly two, applications to what used to be called the Divisional Court -- it is no longer called that -- the Ontario Court (General Division) as it is called now, and that is good, that is fine, but I encourage him to get on with some of the more important issues that confront him as the Attorney General and confront the people of the province as they look to a system of justice that can be responsive to their needs and that we can all be proud of.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to stand up and talk very briefly on this as well. As the Attorney General said, it is not too controversial, it is basically a housekeeping measure. The bill confirms that most of the members of the board of inquiry constituted under the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force Complaints Act, 1984, will continue to sit as members of the boards until their work is completed. So this just ties up some of the loose ends with that.

Under subsection 112(2) of the act, the boards of inquiry constituted under the previous act are still responsible for hearing complaints made before the Police Services Act came into effect. The amendment has been brought forward, I think, probably more than anything else to avoid some of the challenges that would be out there to their decision.

Like the previous speaker, though, I am concerned that the only initiative coming out of the Ministry of the Solicitor General is just tying up some loose ends. When I got involved in becoming the critic for the Solicitor General, I figured it was going to be a ministry that was going to be fairly active.

We in this province have a tremendous increase in crime rates, actually unprecedented in our history, and I figured some action would come through. We are not seeing that.

The justice system in Ontario does not work right now. We have a situation where the rapid increase in crime has meant that so many of the criminals who are out there get away with it. The police are unable to keep up with the increases out there because of a lot of interrelated problems, things like the high use of drugs, which accounts for such a high proportion of the break and enters. People who are involved in that are breaking and entering in record numbers in this province.

It was my hope that we would see some concrete action rather than tying up some bills. Even for the act itself, the Police Services Act -- that is of course a fairly detailed bill -- all the work was done by the previous government. I think that when the Solicitor General brought it in he did point out the fact that much of the work was done, and of course we missed one small little piece with this.

Hon Mr Hampton: That is why we are correcting it.

Mr Carr: The Attorney General says they are just trying to clean up some of the mistakes. I had the fortunate pleasure and I never worked so hard in all my life as when we sat on support and custody orders enforcement and tried to fix up some of the mistakes in his bill. We went on and on with the mistakes that were there, but we came out of it, I think, with some valuable input and hopefully that is what we are going to do with committees, so that these things do not happen.

We are all here to contribute in our own little way and in fact some of the members on the justice committee who were there who have legal minds missed things like this. Sometimes collectively we can make sure things like this do not get through.

The nice part about it is that when we have participation and full involvement, when you have a justice committee like we have looking at some of the bills, little things that sometimes we think we are spending too much time on -- I know some of the members even right now are a little bit upset with what is going on in the justice committee over conflict of interest. We are trying to take our time to get things done right and there is no: "Push it through, push it through. Let's move quickly." We see what happens sometimes when things do move a little more quickly than we would like. We have to go back and change things.

Even though this is a housekeeping bill, I am hoping we will get into a situation where we will get some substantial action to be able to deal with the concrete problems.

I had an opportunity during Police Week to spend some time with the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and spent some time actually at their sexual assault unit at headquarters in Toronto. One of the things I was amazed at was the fine job the police in our communities are doing, how technically advanced we are in some of the measures that are going on and that our fine police forces are doing. Sometimes it seems that what is holding them back are the people who sit in this House. If we freed them up, they would be able to do a lot of great work.

When we were down there I asked them what they would like to see done with policing in Ontario, and what they would like to see from the Legislature, from somebody like myself who is involved. I guess it was during a meeting we had with some of the drug enforcement people from all levels. The RCMP was there; the OPP and the Metro Police were there as well. They said, "One of the things we would like to see is the politicians to stand out of our way and allow us to continue to work in this province."

Sometimes we think as we sit here that we are doing something valid with some of these housekeeping measures, but I would hope that we would be able to move forward in some concrete areas, because as we sit here today we have a justice system which, because of the numbers, does not catch criminals and we have a court situation where when they get caught they do not get prosecuted.

I think in this day and age we need to show very clearly that with all the cases that have been sprung, where they do not get sent to jail -- of course one of the big concerns we have is that after this, at the far end of it, even if you do get caught and prosecuted, I believe there are certain areas where the punishment is not strong enough, and in fact we had some of complaints with some of the release programs.

1550

We have to look at all areas as we go forward. Hopefully we are going to get into some substantial legislation that is going to allow us to make some very important inroads. Unfortunately, in this day and age, we are facing a dramatic rise in crime. One of the things we always felt we had in this province, one of the things that made us different from a lot of the situations in the United States, in some of the big areas they have in major cities with tremendous crime rates, was the fact that our streets were safe. Unfortunately, as we reflect upon the circumstances in Ontario today, indeed the streets are not safe in all areas.

I am pleased to be able to add a few comments on this piece of legislation. I will say, though, that I hope that as we go forward over the next little while we are going to get some more substantial pieces of legislation to deal with the impending problems that are facing our province during this period of time.

As the previous speaker said, we will be supporting this and looking for its rapid passage. Hopefully we will be able to get a chance to move on to some other substantial legislation that is going to really make an impact, because that is what we are here for and that is what the people of the province of Ontario expect from us.

Mr J. Wilson: I am pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 66 and on some police matters in Ontario. On two occasions recently I brought to the attention of this House a situation that is becoming both increasingly frustrating and worrisome for constituents in my riding of Simcoe West, as well as for the citizens across Ontario. The situation to which I refer, of course, is the lack of 24-hour policing in Ontario Provincial Police detachments in my riding.

I know that each member in this House shares my concern for policing services, because the fruits of our prosperous society cannot be savoured without an environment of security.

Here is a quote from Georg Wilhelm Hegel, which I feel sums up the situation most eloquently, "Order is the first requisite of liberty." No one knows this better than Mr and Mrs John Smart of Creemore. They operate the Creemore Village Pharmacy in Creemore. It is your typical story of a young couple who worked hard, saved their money and invested their money in their dreams, which in this case is the pharmacy business.

Unfortunately what is also becoming typical are the difficulties that plague and seek to undermine the entrepreneurial spirit in this province. The Smarts are not only victims of too many taxes and too much government intervention; they are being victimized by the very system that their tax dollars have supported over the years.

For those members who are unfamiliar with the plight of the Smarts, I will refresh their memory. Their Creemore Village Pharmacy has been burglarized five times in the past year and three times over the past two months. There is one common thread weaving its way through these burglaries. The times of the burglaries have coincided identically with the hours officers from the local OPP detachment go off duty and go on call from their homes.

When asked about this serious problem, the government's Solicitor General talked about the remarkable job being done day in and day out by police officers in this province. There is absolutely no question of that. During Police Week, I went on patrol and spent a great deal of time with officers from the Alliston and Stayner OPP detachments. Their dedication, commitment and performance is at all times exemplary.

But the Solicitor General should desist from clouding the issue. The issue is not one of performance but one of deterrence. Criminals who travel to Creemore know exactly how capable the officers in the detachment are. That is precisely why they wait for these officers to go off duty before striking. When officers go off duty and go on call, the capability to deter crime in areas such as Creemore goes with them.

If the Solicitor General has been consistent, he has been consistent in his ability and perhaps his willingness to cloud this issue. When I initially raised this issue back in April, the Solicitor General told me his inaction was related directly to a province-wide staffing report that he had not yet received. But on 4 June the Solicitor General, in response to a question from my colleague the member for Wellington, confirmed that he had this report on his desk since March.

Hon Mr Hampton: This is not a Solicitor General's bill.

Mr J. Wilson: This ties into Bill 66 very well, Mr Speaker.

While the Solicitor General hums and haws over this issue, businesses and individuals are living in fear and anxiety. The people of Creemore and area are left to wonder about a system of government that ignores rural Ontario and reneges on its promises.

There is a letter dated 16 August 1988, to a concerned resident in Creemore, from the former Solicitor General, the Liberal Solicitor General. The resident who wrote was troubled by the lack of 24-hour policing three years ago. The Solicitor General wrote to her at that time: "I am happy to report that a vacant position at the detachment will be filled within the next few weeks and a second by early fall. This will result in the detachment's complement being reduced by only one position. Once the complement of the detachment has been fully restored, 24-hour policing service will resume."

This represents a firm commitment by the Solicitor General of the day to rectify a serious problem, and three years later nothing has changed. The same problem exists. The current Solicitor General, instead of acting, wants to study the problem even further.

Is it any wonder that the public at large is angry with governments? Law and order is not something we can negotiate as simply one more demand by one more set of interests. It is, and must be, one of our fundamental priorities as a society. It is of great concern to me when I read comments in the newspaper from American tourists, upon visiting this province, who remark, "Gee, this is just like back home," after witnessing increasing crime on our streets.

What this says, in a most compelling fashion, is that we are rapidly losing the qualities that make Ontario an incredible place to live. It is not a question of benign neglect or stretched resources; it is simply a matter of government priorities. Without a resolute commitment to law and order, all of what we enjoy in our society, such as social programs, recreational activities, education, employment, clean air and clean water, etc, means nothing without law and order.

While we are discussing police services, I would like to draw to the attention of the government the need for greater sensitivity in making appointments to police boards. Last December the NDP government made appointments to the police services board for the new amalgamated town of Alliston, Beeton, Tecumseth and Tottenham.

It was already extremely difficult for these four distinct communities to be crunched together in the process of amalgamation, but the government's shortsightedness and thoughtless appointments process just exacerbated that problem. In selecting the police services board for the amalgamated town, the government ignored the obvious needs of the four communities and selected, almost solely, individuals from the Alliston area. Suddenly residents from Beeton, Tottenham and Tecumseth were told to accept a brand-new police commission which they had little or no representation on.

The excuse given was the lack of time to make the selections and the lack of applications. That is what the government's response to my constituents' concerns was. The selections were made in December by the cabinet, which gave the government two full months to select a representative and an acceptable board. The fact that the selection process was poorly advertised accounts for any shortage in applications. Numerous people were interested in being on the board, but no one knew about the appointment process.

Here is a quote from one of my constituents, Tom Henry of Tottenham, who was upset with the process. He says:

"Many of us expected big things from this government. I, for one, was especially heartened by the promised objective approach to such appointments, and while I realize there was not time in this case to put the formal procedures in place, we could have firmly expected that such principles would have been applied to the choices. Instead, we end up with a virtual disaster and then what appears to be a whitewash to explain it. Surely you can do better, and surely you are big enough to admit the error and take steps to correct it."

That is the a quote from Tom Henry of Tottenham, writing to the Solicitor General and the Premier.

I know that not only do John Smart and Tom Henry, my constituents, want this government to do better, but so do millions across the province who have a greater sense of priority and understand the importance of law and order in our province and in our society.

1600

Mr Runciman: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate today on Bill 66, An Act to amend the Police Services Act. I served as the critic for the Ministry of the Solicitor General in the last Parliament and have been succeeded most ably by the member for Oakville South. Of course, during that period of time as critic of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, I had the opportunity to become somewhat familiar with the concerns of police men and women across this province.

I wanted to take this opportunity while discussing Bill 66 to put some of those concerns on the record, because rather than being allayed following the 6 September election, I think the concerns of the policing community are even more extreme, if you will, in terms of some of the past statements of current members of the socialist government and indeed some of the actions they have undertaken since assuming office.

Morale has been a growing problem, especially in the Metropolitan Toronto area, with a significant number of officers leaving the force because of certainly the pressure of the job and the lack of support they see from elected officials. This government has done nothing to deal with that growing crisis of morale within the ranks of the Metro Toronto police force, and in fact it has done just the opposite; it has undertaken initiatives that worsen the problem.

We just have to point to Ms Susan Eng's election as the chair of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board. This is an individual who in her public utterances has attacked the credibility, the willingness and commitment of many fine members of the Metro Toronto police force. It is no wonder the kind of concerns created within the police force within Metro Toronto when the Premier indicated that Ms Eng was his personal choice as the chair of this board. That is just one example.

We are going to have to wait and see how Ms Eng performs in this new role. She is obviously very much aware of the spotlight she is going to be under as a result of some of the things she has said and done in the past. I am sure my colleague the member for Oakville South and other members of this party are going to be very much part of the scrutiny of Ms Eng and her actions as chair of the police services board in Metro Toronto.

Another indication of the lack of understanding and empathy -- this does not apply just to the police forces; I think this could apply with respect to the population at large -- with the police men and women of this province was the decision to remove the oath of office to the Queen. What a slap in the face, at a time when this country is facing significant problems in terms of division between the two language groups and other groups in society. We have this government, unfeeling as it is with respect to our heritage, making this kind of move, removing the oath of office to the Queen. I believe it is the Metro force that is taking the government to court over this matter. That shows members just how strong the feelings are and it shows them how insensitive this current socialist government is.

Another matter that I think is an extremely important one, raised again by the member for Oakville South in this House with a non-response from the Attorney General -- which has become commonplace for the Attorney General, to stand in his place in this House and say: "The matter is before the courts. I can't comment on it."

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: This is a very serious matter that certainly is not one we should be joking about in this Legislature, and that is indeed the Attorney General's decision to re-lay charges against Constable Brian Rapson.

We talk about morale within the police forces. I met with my police force in Brockville during Police Week. I know members of my caucus met with police boards and police officers during that week as well. I believe virtually every one of them talked about the Rapson case and the message it sent out to police men and women across this province.

Here is a gentleman who was charged and went through a preliminary hearing. The charges were completely dismissed, and then the Attorney General -- and I do not know whether this is the case or not, but the Attorney General refuses to respond. Certainly the suggestion is out there that he gave in to pressure from certain groups within society, especially within Metro Toronto, to lay charges for purely political reasons. When that has been raised in this House, he has had the opportunity to address it.

Mr Drainville: I believe that under standing order 23(g)(i) it says: "In debate, a member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination." Obviously that is the case in this case, Mr Speaker, so I think the member should be called to order.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): The table will take this under advisement. The member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor. Please continue.

Mr Runciman: I guess we could have a debate about this. I am not talking about the case before the courts. What I am talking about is the process and I am talking about the Attorney General's decision following the dismissal of charges at the preliminary hearing level.

Again, I am trying to address the question of morale problems and the signals being sent out by this socialist government with respect to the confidence it has in the ability of our police men and women in this province to do the job when they do things like appointing a Susan Eng, when they remove the oath of office to the Queen, when they re-lay charges against an officer who has to go through this ordeal again -- not only him but his family, wife and children, not to mention all of his colleagues within the Metro force and throughout Ontario, who are extremely concerned about what they deem to be political interference.

We can again be scoffed at, and points of privilege and points of order can be raised simply because the members opposite do not want to hear this message. They had better start paying attention, not just to this message but to a lot of other messages that are forthcoming and are right out there now, which the members opposite choose to ignore.

We are talking about safety in the streets, and I want to put a few facts on the record. Metro Toronto's murder rate could rival that of American cities by the end of the year. That is from Chief William McCormack.

Mr O'Connor: Whose fault is that?

Mr Runciman: I am not suggesting that is the honourable member's fault.

Mr Hope: Our fault.

Mr Runciman: The honourable member should not be so paranoid. Paranoid socialists. I think that is part of their platform: Paranoia for everyone.

Hon Mr Pouliot: "Socialism" is fine, but "paranoid"? You have gone too far.

Mr Runciman: I always go too far as far as you guys are concerned.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member should address the Chair, please, and possibly could avoid a lot of confusion from the other side of the House.

Mr Runciman: The members opposite are permanently confused, Mr Speaker, so despite my addressing you, that is not going to correct that situation. In any event, I do not want to talk about that. We can talk about a number of facts I want to put on the record and then make reference to them.

I am not blaming the socialist government for the fact that crime is on the rise in Ontario. Another six months from now, if they have not done anything to adequately address it, I may indeed stand in this House and blame them for it.

I talked about Metro's murder rate. We all know what is happening in the streets of this city. Between 1985 and 1989, the actual number of offences of violent crimes in Metro increased from 18,765 to 27,000, a 147% increase. Auto theft in just the last year is up 12.4%. The Toronto Sun of 13 February 1991 had a story that police logged 16 heists in 18 hours. Gunpoint robberies are up 190% this year, and the number of drug-related crimes is skyrocketing.

We can get outside the Metro area. In Durham, the number of drug offences has increased over 28%; sexual assaults up 13.5%; assaults on police officers up 19%; assaults on citizens increased 12.5%; break and enter, 17.2%; break and enter of businesses up almost 35%. I wonder how the current government is addressing that.

What are they doing? They are appointing Susan Eng, who has been very much antipolice in her attitudes and approaches in the Metro police board. What are they doing? They are removing the oath of office to the Queen. What else are they doing to improve the morale? They are re-laying charges against a police officer in Toronto. They are also removing the OPP Pipes and Drums and the OPP Golden Helmets.

1610

Those are the kinds of initiatives this government has undertaken to address a growing problem in Ontario with respect to increasing violent crime and all other crimes across the map. That is the government's answer. What a great answer. We have police officers in this province who are forced to answer calls from their area in their own personal cars because the government will not provide them with police cars to do their job.

We talk about police officers in this province who simply are not being provided with the tools to do the job adequately. We look at the automatic and semi-automatic weapons. They have to go into some areas of Metro Toronto and be faced with semi-automatic weapons. What do police officers in Toronto have? When they talk about getting better weaponry, what kind of approach do we get from the Solicitor General and the Attorney General? Absolute silence. This is a growing problem. We are talking about safety on the streets of this province.

Interjections.

Mr Runciman: The government can laugh it off, can scoff it off, but there are growing concerns in this province.

There was a study done last year that showed that close to 40% of people in Toronto are afraid to go out of their homes at night. Almost half the people of this city are now afraid to go out of their homes and to walk the streets of Metro Toronto. Does that not say something to the government? Is there no message in that for them about growing concern about safety in the streets?

Again, the Attorney General is smiling his way through all of these serious problems. I do not think it is a laughing matter at all. It is a serious situation and this government has not even attempted to deal with it. In fact, it has taken actions that have the opposite effect of improving the morale of our forces in this province. How are we going to address all of the problems like swarming of youth street gangs? What about the increasing problem of Asian crime? I do not see anything happening.

I do not recall a statement -- perhaps there has been one; if there is, I will apologize -- from the minister responsible for fighting the drug problem in this province. What kind of significant initiatives has he undertaken? They are reworked Liberal initiatives that were not doing the job. In fact, when we take a look, 80% of the heroin that ends up in the United States comes through Canada. When we talk about someone being responsible for the drug problem in this province, why does the government not assign a member of the executive council with just that responsibility? That is so serious. Most of the crime in this province is now related to drugs and drug activity. Let's have one person, not someone who is looking after two other ministries and simply does not have the time.

Members of the executive council know what kinds of responsibilities are placed upon them, what kinds of groups, associations and individuals want to take up their time. They have to prepare for question period, they have to prepare for all sorts of things. To say that a minister can adequately do the job when he has other responsibilities in line ministries is foolishness for anyone who has served in the executive council. We know it just does not work. He is simply not paying attention or certainly cannot pay adequate attention, and I am not necessarily being critical of the minister. The Premier assigned those responsibilities. He is the head of this government, and obviously he does not place enough importance on the question of crime, drug-related crime, police morale and safety on the streets of this province. What he does place priority on is, apparently, giving in to pressure from very vocal and active minority groups to do things like re-laying charges against a Metro Toronto Police officer.

I would like to hear the Attorney General or the Solicitor General get up and talk about the Young Offenders Act, the revolving door system. I know it is a piece of federal legislation. I grant them that, but certainly the Attorney General and the Solicitor General of this province can play a very active role in seeing amendments brought forward that are going to get rid of the revolving door, that are going to adequately deal with young offenders who commit serious crimes. It is so offensive to most of us in society when a young offender commits a murder, for example, and is back out on the streets after three years of what I would call soft time, certainly not hard time.

Again, those are just some of the matters this government, this minister and this Solicitor General, who is not here today, who has certainly not engendered a lot of respect in terms of -- although I like him personally and served with him in opposition and felt he did a fine job as a member of the opposition, I share the view of most of us, if not all of us, on this side of the House in respect of what has occurred in the past, that he should have indeed stepped aside. But I am not going to get into that today.

I have put on the record the swarming youth gangs and the increasing problem of Asian crime. I see an estimate in here, in some of the facts that I have, that they believe that in North America now we have over 2,000 individuals who are considered to be members of the Asian Mafia. We had a murder in Toronto recently, in a restaurant in Chinatown, again involving Asian gangs, where they walked into the restaurant and shot down a patron of the restaurant. It is unbelievable that this sort of thing is starting to happen in Toronto. We have talked in negative terms -- especially the NDP, who are always so anti-American, always so holier than thou -- about New York City or Detroit, talked about Americans in a disparaging way. Now here we are faced with a situation where in Metro Toronto, according to Chief McCormack of the Metro Police Force, we are going to be matching some American cities now because of increasing violent crime in Metro Toronto.

Where is the holier-than-thou attitude now? The government is simply not addressing this situation. But we have to. We have to have some initiatives undertaken by this government to deal with these very real, serious problems. They have got to get their priorities straight.

When we talk about this, they always say, "You're talking about spending more money." We are not talking about spending more money; we are talking about a reallocation of priorities. We can talk about budgets and how much this government is allocating for public safety versus what it is putting into social assistance. I think most of us in public would take a look at the increasing spending in social assistance, for example. There have been a lot of stories written about this, and some members will take issue with columns, for example, by Diane Francis and others who have pointed out some of the failings of the social assistance programs in Ontario, but I do not want to get into that too much.

I am talking about a whole range of priorities. This party is prepared to sit down with the government and show it where we think money can be moved and spent more effectively. Certainly one of the most important areas it can be spent on is public safety. Let's look at increasing that budget. Let's look at putting more funds in the hands of police boards across this province. Let's look at putting the correct tools in the hands of policemen and policewomen across this province so they can start to do the job effectively, or much more effectively than they can now because of the limitations the government is placing upon them.

I could go on in this subject at length, but in conclusion I want to indicate to the members and to the public that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario is going to continue to keep the homes and streets of Ontario safe.

Mr Sorbara: I will wait a moment for some of the uproar that developed in the House as a result of the speech by the member for Leeds-Grenville. I guess we should call them the police party. I think some of his comments were inflammatory and I would hope that some day the kind of rhetoric about what is happening in our society in respect of the fear that we now live in should not be brought into this House. He fires around statistics that now 40% of the people in the greater Toronto area are afraid to go out at night. That is utter nonsense.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That is irresponsible.

Mr Sorbara: It is irresponsible. I take the words out of the mouth of the minister responsible for francophone affairs; actually, the only words he has mentioned in this House since it began sitting this spring, but I thank him for them.

1620

Hon Mr Pouliot: Why don't you ask a question?

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for York Centre has the floor.

Mr Sorbara: No, we do not ask him questions. He does such a good job of conducting what few things he does as minister responsible for -- what is it again?

An hon member: Gold mines.

Mr Sorbara: Mines, that is right. There is not very much mining going on in the province any more, but we do have a Minister of Mines, inactive as he is.

Hon Mr Pouliot: He lies.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry. Would you withdraw those words, please. I am asking for a withdrawal.

Hon Mr Pouliot: With the highest respect, I would never say that. I have said that the member, with due respect, lies there.

The Acting Speaker: I believe I heard it slightly differently. Would you withdraw what you originally said, sir?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Mr Speaker, you are putting me under a state of siege. I will withdraw.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Sorbara: If I might just have a few more seconds to complete my comments, I think my friend the member for Leeds-Grenville has made some good points in his speech, but it would have been a far better address to this assembly if he had not involved himself and involved this House in remarks that are so inflammatory and so suggestive of the kind of society that we know does not exist. For his purposes in those comments he suggests that it does exist and of course it --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Would the honourable member for Downsview please control himself.

Mr Harnick: I have heard the remarks of the member for York Centre and I disagree with him entirely. The member for Leeds-Grenville quoted very solid statistics that are illustrative of the difficulties within society today.

I think it is interesting to note that I received yesterday some amendments to the Courts of Justice Act made by the Attorney General, things such as if you file a document with the Court of Appeal it has to have a buff-coloured back and it has to weigh 735 milligrams, if there is such a thing as milligrams. When we read about statistics such as the statistics set out by the member for Leeds-Grenville, I wonder why we are so concerned that the back of a document filed with the Court of Appeal has to be in buff colour. We have some real problems that need addressing and the problems are illustrated by those facts and figures the member for Leeds-Grenville has set out.

Certainly the member for York Centre is concerned that the remarks might have been inflammatory. The remarks were not inflammatory; they were informatory. They were informing the public of the deterioration of the justice system and the enforcement of law and order in this province and the lack of support his government is providing for law enforcement officers.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I listened very quietly to my colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Sorbara: None of the rest of your colleagues did.

Hon Ms Ziemba: The rest of the colleagues from the other side did not either.

I was very disturbed by the tone of the comments. I felt very concerned about how he was phrasing the type of crime that is being committed and where the crime is being committed and the fact that he questioned that people from certain groups might not have the right to have a voice about addressing the question of the police. I really am very concerned when I hear that tone.

I really feel we have to start taking a leadership role, all of us in the Legislature. We all have a responsibility for showing that we do not have any bias or any prejudice in this role. I really am concerned when we hear that type of tone and the innuendoes that are mentioned. I do worry that we all must take a responsibility in this House and I really am concerned when I do not hear that leadership being addressed.

I would like to remind all members of the House that we must all play a very important role to make sure that we have a comfort zone, that we do not have the public in a reactionary situation, pitting one group of people against another group. That is the type of rhetoric we heard today that could do just that. I share my concerns with my colleague the member for York Centre who said the exact same thing. I am very concerned that we would continue to have that type of rhetoric.

Mr Runciman: You try to intimidate people.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I listened very quietly to the debate. I did not interrupt the member's speech. My friend will have his moment to respond to my comments and I will sit quietly and listen.

Mr Cousens: I do not know whether people who have been commenting on the presentation of the member for Leeds-Grenville were here to listen to what he had to say. The first thing I want to say is to thank him for standing up for the men and women in blue who have a very important job to do. It takes someone who has seen the problems over the last several years.

As our former critic for the Solicitor General, I happen to know that the member for Leeds-Grenville is one who is genuinely concerned with these issues. When someone tries to attribute some motivation to him that would put other people down, that is not the case. I see him as standing up, strong, loud and clear, to defend the rights of all people in this province to have justice, so that there are people on the streets to help protect them, everybody, and that there is no differentiation but that all people have that opportunity to know that in this country and in this province there are going to be people to defend and protect them.

Do members know something? One of our roles in the Legislature should also be to honestly, in a very positive, creative and good way, know that the police services board -- and there are other ways in which we can have a stronger police services system. What the member for Leeds-Grenville is asking for is just a reinforcement of those values within our society rather than a continual downgrading of them. He says it is one of the most important things in our society. I appreciate the fact that he has done that. I appreciate the perspective he brings to this issue. I think all of us in this House have to understand that if we do not take this justice system very seriously, it will be eroded, it will be undermined, and so will democracy and so will the very life of this very province.

So on behalf of the seat that I represent, I thank the member for Leeds-Grenville for his remarks and I think they were well said.

Mr Runciman: The member for York Centre was saying that my comments were inflammatory. I do not think necessarily that my comments were inflammatory. Perhaps the way I expressed myself was inflammatory. The statistic I was using, that 39% of Torontonians were afraid to come out of their homes in the evening, that is based on a Gallup poll. That is not something I simply pulled out of the air. The statistics I was providing in the debate this afternoon are indeed just that, statistics that have been drawn together by a variety of researchers. They are indeed accurate. I think for the member to get up and simply indicate that I am pulling figures out of the air could scare people. It is simply not accurate.

1630

The Minister for Citizenship in her intervention suggested I was trying to pit different groups within society against one another. I resent that kind of reference to my comments. It certainly was not my intent. But I want to say that is an old tactic, certainly an old tactic on the part of the Liberal Party, on the part of the NDP, where they get up and charge someone with doing that sort of thing in an effort to intimidate us, to keep us shut up so we will not raise issues like the re-laying of charges against Constable Rapson, very much a typical socialist move.

The Attorney General had every opportunity to get up in this House and address this matter. He knew what the public concerns were; they were reported in the press. The suggestion that he was caving in to pressure from certain groups within Metropolitan Toronto: He had the opportunity to address that, deny that and show that, if indeed he was responding to those kinds of pressures, there were valid reasons to do so, but he refused to take up that opportunity.

So I think that I, as an elected member who is genuinely concerned about what is happening in respect to public safety, have to raise those issues in this House.

Mr Cousens: I just have to say before I begin my remarks that I appreciate the leadership that has been given by our own critic for Solicitor General, the member for Oakville South. The member, in his presentation, has touched on a large number of the issues that really need to be addressed in this House.

I also recognize and value the comments made by the member for Simcoe West. In his own riding, in Collingwood and Alliston, he recognizes there are serious problems undermining the work of the police services and really has to address them and has, I think, tabled a number of excellent points for consideration by this House.

I just cannot believe how the member for Leeds-Grenville opens up an issue and everybody starts attacking him for it. I really think that when we come into this House there should be an opportunity for every member to speak his or her mind and openly and honestly table the issues. I have to say that from my perspective I have seen him doing that for the last 10 years in a very eloquent and clear way. I think the people out there who have elected him expect to have continued leadership like that in the future.

Maybe we should all take a lesson that the people here in the province of Ontario are looking to us as legislators for leadership on the whole police services issue. They do not want us just to come along and take sides and, "Oh, I am on this policeman's side or that side or I am in the -- " Hey, we are on the side of justice and right and truth. We know that when we have a strong police force -- but that is not being said by the socialists. We are not hearing that from them.

We are seeing the New Democratic government of Ontario, by its actions and by its lack of comment and commitment to it, indicating that it does not have that sense of urgency behind law and order. That has to be one of the fundamental concerns of everybody in this province. They want us as legislators to break down the partisan walls that separate us and stand up together and say we are in favour of what is right for society, that we have a strong justice system, that we are going to build a justice system that is going to defend the rights of all people in this province. That is what has to happen here and throughout the province as a whole. So when we have a police services board we are there, through them, allowing the public to be continually reflected in the service that they are being provided, the sense that there is someone there who cares about them. We care, and the people in the province of Ontario want to know that once we are elected we have not forgotten about law and order.

That is where the member for Leeds-Grenville has been coming from in his presentation. He cares an awful lot, and I thank him immensely for that kind of leadership. That is what we are looking for from the Solicitor General and this government. Let's not just have empty words. Let's have some sense of being behind this process.

I cannot believe there has not been a real outcry of people having a sense of worry about the police forces across this province. First of all, we are seeing an exodus of Metro Toronto Police officers leaving the Metro force, and I am seeing it in my own York region area. It might be happening in other areas, but I do not have enough data to substantiate that.

The fact is that on 7 February the recent statistics show that 70 police officers left the Metro Toronto Police Force to work in other parts across the province, compared to 44 last year, to 26 the year before, to 13. The number of people who are leaving the Metro Police Force is increasing.

Come on. We cannot continue to have that: these men and women, experienced in the law, experienced in the administration of it, just allowed to slip away quietly. Come on. We need to be there to understand that there are fundamental reasons that are undermining their confidence in the system, and we have to help rebuild that.

That is part of the reason why our legislators supported the police services boards, so that there would be a group out there that would say, "Hey, look, we understand there are needs of the police force, but also of society," and keep them in balance in harmony, and where there are problems, then they will be dealt with.

Instead, this government, through the kind of appointment process to the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board, has given another kind of message to the police force. They have said, "We are going to appoint Susan Eng."

I do not know Ms Eng except through things I have read in the media and seen on TV, and also because she has seemed, according to my understanding of things, not to be supportive of the defend-and-protect role of police people. If that is the case, do we now have someone in charge of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board who is, in fact, not going to be there to help make it a stronger force and a stronger society?

I do not want to hold the police force up against society. The two have to be weighed out and balanced out together. But if they have got someone who is now running the Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board who does not embody the same concerns, the same empathy, the same sense of balance that is wanted for this, then what they have done is self-destruct that services board as it affects the police services delivery in the Metropolitan Toronto area. That is a concern and a problem.

In politics there is one lesson that we learn very quickly, that perception is reality. If it is perceived that the board is weak and it has been weakened in its role and its delivery of services not only to the public but to the police themselves, then is one in fact destroying the delicate balance that takes place, where they are saying, "Hey, we want to have all the facts and all the information."

It is the sense, rightly or wrongly, but it is the perception that comes with the appointment of Susan Eng and the special dispensation that was given her in not having to swear an oath to the Queen, and the surrounding circumstances of her services or lack thereof, or the type of service.

Again, I am having to deal with the perception that I have, along with anyone else who has watched the Toronto scene, that this is not one who really takes into consideration the kind of things that a John MacBeth would have had when he served on the police commission, an outstanding Canadian who had served as Solicitor General, who had served in government, who had served in local politics, who was proven and known. Now we are having people appointed to major positions, where there is a suspicion attached to them.

That is the worry that I have around the appointments. Let there be no doubt that when people who are appointed to a position of any kind, if they are there and embody all the best that society has to bring, then there will not be a cloud of suspicion that surrounds them. That is the perception around the appointment of Susan Eng.

It is also the perception around other appointments by the New Democratic government where, in fact, it would seem it is making a wholesale effort to appoint certain kinds of people who are either card carrying members of their party or who are active --

Mr Hope: Cheap shot.

Mr Cousens: Cheap shot, says my friend.

Mr Hope: You were doing an excellent job up until then.

Mr Cousens: Right up until when I lost you, eh?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member for Markham please address his remarks to the Chair.

1640

Mr Cousens: Well, when you lose one listener and there is only one listening to you, you are in real trouble.

Mr Johnson: I'm listening.

Mr Cousens: Oh, there is a second one.

Here is the problem we have got. It is the perception of the appointments process. When it is flawed, it flaws the whole system to which that person is then attached.

I challenge the government, I challenge the Premier and the ministers, who have such great responsibility to keep this province strong, that when they are making appointments, they make every effort to see that the people who are there are ones who are going to have that kind of character and integrity and the ingredients and the background that are not going to cause any suspicion or any cloud or any worry; that the perception that will be carried from their appointment will be one that is positive and good.

We have got to do something within the police services board to give encouragement to our police. I just cannot believe the number of Metro officers during the past year who risked their lives, when men and women go out in uniform or out of uniform. We saw this with the recent incident in Toronto where a Metro undercover officer was shot and is still recovering in hospital. In fact, if he is watching, may I wish him well. Constable Dee I think is his name, and may he have a full and complete recovery. Certainly in this Legislature we respect the kind of service that he has been giving. With the fact that he had to be injured while in office, he certainly will go down as one of the courageous officers who has served our community when the list is made up for 1991.

But look at some of these people: Constable Dennis Yueng was savagely beaten and told he was going to die when robbers of an Asian gaming room found that an undercover officer was present. In fact, a gun was shoved in his mouth and fired but did not discharge. That is the kind of thing that could happen when an officer goes out to work.

What are we doing about it as legislators? I think we have to say: "Thank you for being there. How terrible to go through it, and may the police services board have a sense of understanding of the kind of danger that you are living with."

Constable Rudy Besser had a gun held to his head by a bandit who crept up behind him. Besser turned around and fired two shots first.

Mr Stockwell: Rudy Besser? I went to school with him. I played hockey with him.

Mr Cousens: The member for Etobicoke West went to school with Constable Besser. Here is another person who has to stand tall in our society.

Constable John Dorey chased Asian youth gang members he spotted with meat cleavers and guns. He was fired on but was saved by a bullet-proof vest. That happened last year in Toronto.

Constable Anthony Kanapa helped trap a gang of heroin traffickers and a price was put on his head. His life is still in danger.

Constables David Malcolm and Angelo Peruzza squashed a burglary ring when they spotted a stolen car. Their lives were in danger since they found four guns and $200,000 in jewellery. They later recovered four stolen cars.

This goes on and on, where our society is protected by a large number of people who are not as recognized as they should be by society. Hopefully, through the police services board, we will find a way in which society will begin to work with police forces.

Through our own efforts in the last number of years -- in fact it was my own private member's bill back in 1981-82 that brought in support from this Legislature for the Neighbourhood Watch program. Neighbourhood Watch is now something that we have in many parts of the province where neighbours look out for the interests of the whole community, and if they see something that is suspicious, a car they do not recognize, a person they do not recognize, they have a system of calling the police and then helping the neighbourhood protect itself.

We have also had a way within our community of having the Block Parent program, another community involvement, where the community is saying, "We want to help the police process so that we as a community are not just saying it's someone else's responsibility; it's the man or woman in blue who has to do it." No, the community is saying, "We owe it our own children and our own community to have a strong Block Parent program."

In fact, on that issue I know that the Block Parent program is in real difficulty right now in not being able to find sufficient volunteers to keep that program going. There are many people in this province who do not understand it, and it is an issue in which the Solicitor General could have a very important role to play in giving extra support to the Block Parent program so that when September comes along, more and more people from our communities will begin to say, "I want to get involved with Block Parents." It does not just happen. It will happen through the help and support of every member in our Legislature, using our newsletter to our own constituents, and it will also involve our own Solicitor General saying, "Here's some funding to help these organizations," such as Block Parents, such as Neighbourhood Watch, which really could not exist without that extra support and financial assistance that can come from the ministry.

What we have to do is make sure it is not an us and them relationship between the public and the police forces. When we established the police services boards, there was a sense in which there would be some kind of working together of the community and the police forces, and I do not think we are doing it well enough. There has to be far more involvement by the whole community in the sense of saying that when we are together as a community and someone feels vulnerable or attacked by the system, we have methods by which the community can then dial in to a committee or a group under the police services board or under the police itself to say: "I have a problem. Here's how I want it dealt with."

We have within our own region a tremendous effort being taken by York Regional Police to involve the community as a whole. Though I am complimentary of it, it is not going far enough, because there are still people out there who have come from other countries and are immigrants in this country who still do not think the police are there to serve them and to help them. Maybe they feel threatened because in other countries, if a knock on the door came at night and it could have been a policeman or a policewoman, it was not going to be a pleasant call. Today we have a sense that we should be helping them understand the role of all the police in all our community.

I am concerned that if we do not begin to work together as a society, there are many forces that will undermine the strong society we want to have. There is no doubt that the business of drugs is a very fierce, competitive business, stealing the lives away of young people and of people of all ages.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I listened to you very attentively, and I have also read the amendment to the act. I would suggest that you stick to that.

Mr Cousens: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and it ties into the role that these people will play when they are appointed to the police services board. When they are appointed to the police services board, they will then have a chance to not only accept the appointment and the compensation that goes with it, and also the kind of special attention that it gives them from the province, I want to make sure that they understand the role they have to fulfil once they are on that board. That is certainly part of this bill, and that is why I am going into the community relationship for which the police services board was originally established, so that there is that working through into the community. That is what I am talking about, and I think that is very relevant to the bill.

If I may, I would like to make just a few more comments in that regard. I know there are other people who want to speak on other bills, but the fact of the matter is that we have an opportunity in this House to show leadership on the delivery of police services in this province. That has to be a challenge we all fulfil, and may it be a challenge that goes beyond just the working through of definitions of responsibility. When we have that chance as leaders in our own community, may we make sure that we are breaking down the walls that separate people from the law and that we build into our society a greater sense of respect for law and order.

The system is flawed now, when the government makes flawed appointments where the perception then becomes that the appointee to a police services board is not necessarily the right person. That in itself is undermining a very good system. I challenge the government to review how it is doing these appointments so that when it does make them it is choosing the best of society, for the best of reasons, so that we can continue to build an even stronger society for all generations to come.

1650

Mr Hope: Just dealing with some of the comments of the member for Markham, he made some very good points at times until he got on to the partisan issue. I think he brings out some very important points, talking about the policewomen and policemen of the province. My father-in-law was a retired OPP officer, which I am very proud of, but everybody seems to forget, when they look at the boards in themselves, there is also the family that is involved, the working stress.

We talk about the service boards being in place before and how positive that was. One of the unfortunate parts is that most of the time the workers have to go to arbitration just to get collective agreements in place to be compensated for those moneys they are well deserving of. As they talk about how well it worked in the past, I think there are more things we have to concentrate on.

As I listen to my father-in-law -- it is not too often we listen to one another, but we do -- he raises some very good points. I also listen to his wife, who raises a number of concerns, such as a single parent raising children. We must make sure we address those concerns and the general public as a whole will fall in line with the police services of the province and of small municipalities.

Because of the issue that has been raised in this province about tax revolts, the unfortunate part is the reforms, or whatever we want to call them. I think there was also something of the Conservative Party that talks about taxes. They have put a lot of pressure on small communities dealing with the issue of police services in those small communities. They talk very well here, but we have a lot of problems in our small communities and dealing with service boards in the past. I think some of the issues have to be addressed in the future to make sure a positive approach is there.

Hon Mr Wildman: I just wanted to say to the member how much I enjoyed listening to him and realized that finally we were going to deal with the issues. He is requesting that the member for Cambridge act as Solicitor General, a position of leadership in this province. It is good that finally the opposition recognizes the kind of work the Solicitor General can do, and is behind him every inch of the way with regard to the support of the policing in this province.

Mr Cousens: I thank the member for Chatham-Kent for his comments because he brings a perspective to the issue. It has to do with the delivery of the services to the police forces themselves. You cannot just come along and say, "Hey, we're going to back you up philosophically." There has to be a financial commitment as well to those people out there. As they get into salary negotiations and have a constant feeling of stress that they are not being fairly treated, we have to make sure those situations are addressed fairly, honestly and openly.

Sometimes we have tried to push those things under the carpet and said, "Hey, you're doing a good job out there," and then did not come back to make sure their grievances and concerns, the time they are spending away from their homes, the stress and the other problems that come out in their own personal lives, were held in balance. They have to be in balance as well so that we are not just taking all the time. We have to give back to them their fair share. It has to do with establishing priorities for the government, and for all of us to understand that our society can only be strong when we reaffirm and strengthen the fundamental values that make it strong.

I think the member raises another point: how the families of the police forces worry, their time alone, the time when their loved one, be it father, spouse or whatever, is away and working. There is a sense of dedication that has the worry to it of what will happen to them. Let's not forget they are part of the issue. I think they need to have the encouragement from us as well that we are standing up for them, that we believe in them and that we appreciate what they are doing to help make it a strong society. The member for Chatham-Kent and I do not agree on some things, and that is probably what makes this a better place.

Hon Mr Hampton: I only want to make these comments in wrapping up. The members should all appreciate that the purpose of this housekeeping amendment is to tidy up the act so that we will not be wasting time and money that could otherwise be better spent on duplicating hearings of police boards of inquiry. For some of those members who want to see a dedication of more funding towards community policing and to policing in general, this act will to some extent enable us to do that, because it will guard against the possibility that we may have to duplicate police boards of inquiry due to a problem in the act. I thank the members for their comments and for being mercifully short.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

La motion de troisième lecture est egalement adoptee.

MORTGAGES AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act.

Mr Harnick: The Mortgages Amendment Act, Bill 40, is an act designed to protect tenants in the event that a mortgagor defaults on a mortgage, and a mortgagee becomes in effect the landlord for the tenants remaining in the demised premises.

We have to understand that there are several different types of rental accommodation. We have large, multi-unit buildings, single-family homes, duplexes, fourplexes and basement apartments. This act causes me some considerable concern in that it affects a landlord's ability to look after maintaining the premises he has by way of mortgage money.

It also affects the availability and supply of affordable rental housing and affordable homes. It is not just confined to availability of rental accommodation; it is the ability for a person to afford a home that is affected by this act. This act, although laudable in some respects, should not have anything to do with single-family or single residential dwellings, which I basically classify as single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes or basement apartments.

This bill is making a lender of money for mortgage purposes reluctant to lend that money. It is putting the onus on the mortgagee that he may become a landlord and may have to comply with the Landlord and Tenant Act in the event that the mortgagor, who is paying him, defaults on the mortgage. In many cases he has not gone looking to get into this situation and has not lent money to a mortgagor expecting to end up in a landlord and tenant situation.

I know the Attorney General has been provided with some very detailed information about this bill and about how it could be made better. One of the entities with concerns about this bill is the Canadian Bankers' Association. I would like to review a letter of 3 April 1991 addressed to the Attorney General, expressing these concerns and pointing out a few of the difficulties that the association sees with this bill.

It is concerned that the bill deals with single-family homes, and it believes an exemption should be made for single-family homes that would include a house containing up to three subsidiary units. I might add that there was a piece in one of the Toronto newspapers a short while ago indicating that there were 14,000 basement apartments in the city of Scarborough alone.

Mr Stockwell: And all illegal.

1700

Mr Harnick: They are illegal, but that is not why I point this out. Why I point this out is that those 14,000 apartment units supply an awful lot of affordable housing. If mortgagors cannot get money to buy those homes and rent those apartments because mortgagees are affected by this act and do not want to permit the mortgaging of premises which in some way will be used by a tenant, then those 14,000 units could become non-existent, and that is only in Scarborough.

I put it to everyone here that we probably have more basement apartments in North York, more still in Toronto and probably an equal number in Etobicoke. If we take just those cities alone, we probably have somewhere around 70,000 or 80,000 affordable units of housing that could be affected in a detrimental way by this act.

The Canadian Bankers' Association goes on to say:

"A mortgagee in possession can only give the 60-day notice of termination to a tenant when a binding agreement of purchase and sale has been entered into with the purchaser. Under Bill 40, tenants can reside in a single-family home for many months following the mortgage default, depending on the difficulty that the mortgagee and the home owner encounter in selling the property. The opportunity to give the notice and take vacant possession should not, however, be restricted to circumstances where a binding agreement of purchase and sale has been entered into. This deprives a mortgagee in possession of the option of selling a home in a vacant condition. This will disadvantage mortgagors and mortgagees in circumstances where the sale of a vacant house can secure a better price than the sale of the house when occupied.

"The amendment also restricts the ability of vendors and purchasers to arrange closing dates on house purchases. The provision will seriously inconvenience purchasers who require vacant possession on closing within 60 days of the date of the agreement of purchase and sale. This 60-day period following the agreement seems particularly unfair to purchasers if the tenant has continued to reside in the house for several months while the mortgagee tried to sell the property."

The bankers' association has some considerable concerns about termination of the tenancy. Section 51 of the bill makes reference to a notice of termination under section 105 of the Landlord and Tenant Act. Section 105 of that act provides that a landlord must provide 60 days' notice "where a landlord...requires possession of residential premises, at the end of (a) the period of the tenancy; or (b) the term of a tenancy for a fixed term." The proposed subsection 51(4) of the Mortgages Act, on the other hand, provides that the 60-day notice of termination is effective "regardless of any fixed term of tenancy." The bankers' association states that in its view, subsection 51(4) would be improved if the words "notwithstanding section 105 of the Landlord and Tenant Act" were added at the beginning of the provision.

The other concern that is expressed by the Canadian Bankers' Association is that of monitoring. It states that the bill should be amended to require a mortgagor to respond to a mortgagee's request for tenancy information at any time, not just when default occurs.

Essentially, what they are saying is that a mortgagee should always have the opportunity to ask and find out, if the mortgagee so desires, what the rental condition of the premises might be. Is there going to be a tenant there? Surely a mortgagee is entitled to know that before advancing money on a mortgage. As a result of Bill 40, information about possible tenancies will be of great importance to mortgagees. Only by obtaining this information will mortgagees be able to accurately assess their ability to realize upon mortgaged security in the circumstances of a mortgage default.

The bill provides no assistance to a mortgagee in its task of monitoring whether mortgaged property is being used as residential rental property, and this impedes the ability of the lender to protect the value of the loan asset. This concerns me because essentially this bill provides a situation where the mortgagee is deliberately left in the dark. There is a built-in ability to hide information from the person who is loaning the money so that the single-family residential home can be purchased in the first place. The very idea that information can be sanctioned to be hidden is very unpalatable.

The bankers' association recommends that the bill provide a statutory obligation on mortgagors to provide the information about the existence of residential tenancies when so requested by a mortgage lender, and that is not something that is unusual.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Bankers would think this, Charles.

Mr Harnick: The Minister of Mines is saying, "Well, that's something that typically a banker would say." I put it to the Minister of Mines that if he were loaning money on a property so that someone could afford to purchase it, and if he were taking a mortgage back, he would be very concerned to know everything he possibly could about that property so that he would be sure his interest in that property was protected. That is just obvious; it is basic common sense.

This has nothing to do with just a bank loaning money. This has everything to do with a private investor who is loaning money so that people can afford to buy a home. All this is doing is saying, "Please just tell us whether you're going to be renting out the premises or not." That is all it says. There is nothing heinous about that. There is nothing sinister about that. It is just a basic distrust that this government has about people who enter into the commercial world and run a commercial enterprise.

Another very significant area that the bankers' association points out to the Attorney General is that Bill 40 contains transitional provisions that apply the legislation retroactively to mortgagees who become mortgagees in possession of residential premises on or after 26 January 1990. As of that date, a mortgagee in possession is required to give notice of possession according to the Landlord and Tenant Act. As of 20 December 1990, this requirement also applies to residential premises that are single-family homes. The amendments will apply to existing mortgages, thereby changing the terms of existing mortgage agreements. So in midstream, under contract, where people have contracts between one another, those contracts are going to be changed.

Loans that have been advanced by mortgage lenders on the basis of one set of risk factors will be retroactively affected by new risk factors imposed by the legislation. This is especially serious where a lender has lent funds on the security of a single-family home only to find that the home does not qualify as a single-family home under the legislation.

1710

Bill 40 will have a significant impact on mortgage lending practices. For this reason, the legislation will require lenders to train staff and develop new lending procedures throughout their branch systems in Ontario, and banks and other financial institutions will require a reasonable period of time to implement these changes.

The Canadian Bankers' Association strongly recommends that Bill 40 come into force only on proclamation and should apply only to loans made after the day on which the legislation takes effect. This would provide lenders with the time necessary to adapt to the new lending environment created by the legislation and to ensure its orderly implementation.

This legislation is going to affect the supply of rental property. It is going to affect the ability of landlords of rental property to obtain mortgage money to maintain their property. Even more so, it is going to affect the ability of individuals to go out and purchase affordable homes, because they are going to say, when they have to present that mortgage application to either the institutional lender or the private lender, whether they are going to have to rent part of those premises to be able to afford to make the mortgage payments.

When they say, "I plan to put an apartment in my basement and I plan to rent that apartment out so that I can afford the mortgage," the mortgagee is going to say: "I don't want anything to do with this loan, because if you happen to default on your mortgage then I will be a mortgagee in possession. I will not be able to sell the property with vacant possession, and therefore I will not extend the loan for your mortgage."

So this bill has a detrimental effect in the instances where we are dealing with single-family residences. I do not have any qualms, and no one in my party has any qualms, about protecting tenants in the situation where a mortgagor defaults. It is quite obvious that you cannot have a mortgagor default on a mortgage and allow a mortgagee to come in and throw everybody out of the building.

There is no question that this aspect of the bill is supported by our party. What we do not support is the fact that the government is hurting innocent tenants, innocent landlords and innocent home owners by not distinguishing --

Hon Mr Wildman: Innocent banks.

Mr Harnick: Yes, and banks as well. Banks are lenders, as are private lenders. The government is affecting all of those people by including private residential homes in this legislation.

Essentially, a person who becomes a mortgagee in possession of residential premises is deemed to be a landlord and is subject to any existing tenancy agreements and to the provisions of part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act. The mortgagor ceases to be the landlord; the mortgagee is required to give notice in writing of the change in the landlord. That is set out in sections 45 and 46.

A mortgagee may require a tenant to pay the rent to the mortgagee on or after default under the mortgage, after the mortgagee serves notice on the tenant. It is not clear whether that notice is the same notice as the notice of the change of landlords. The mortgagee is given certain rights to inspect the mortgage premises, to require production of tenancy agreements and to obtain particulars of the mortgagor's tenants, all of which rights can be exercised at any time after default and notwithstanding section 40 of the Mortgages Act.

I said earlier, why are we hiding the particulars of tenancies in single-family residential homes, and not providing a mortgagee, who after all has lent money in good faith, the opportunity to find out about tenancy agreements before he advances the money? Why are we allowing a system that hides information?

The mortgagee is given certain rights to inspect the mortgage premises and to require production of the tenancy agreements, but only after default. The mortgagee may apply to the court for an order requiring compliance where the mortgagor or the mortgagor's tenants do not provide the information and documents requested. However, such conduct by the mortgagor or the mortgagor's tenants is not an offence under the act.

The mortgagee of a single-family home, not a duplex or a triplex, that is subject to a tenancy agreement has the right to obtain possession on behalf of a purchaser who undertakes in writing that he requires the home for the purpose of occupation by himself, his spouse, a child, or parent. The mortgagee in possession may, on reasonable notice and at reasonable times, show to a prospective purchaser a single-family home that is tenanted.

One cannot help noting that some of the provisions of this act are vague and ambiguous. The court is charged to make an order requiring compliance which appears to be in the nature of a mandatory injunction. Why not simply impose such penalties for breach as the mortgagee faces? Again, the court may vary or set aside a tenancy agreement, but the judge shall have regard to the interests of the tenant and the mortgagee. Is the court going to become another rent review board when being asked to decide what to do with the sweetheart lease to the mortgagor's brother? How is the practice and substance of the writ of possession, which speaks to the land and building irrespective of the occupants or defendants, to be modified to accommodate this new method of taking possession?

As I referred to earlier, one of the most obnoxious provisions of the legislation is its retroactivity to 20 December 1990 in the case of a single-family home and to 26 January 1990 in the case of all other residential premises. Hopefully mortgagees who have evicted the mortgagor's tenants under writs of possession lawfully issued and executed under the current law will avoid liability for fines because they did not become a mortgagee in possession before obtaining possession of the residential premises pursuant to such writs.

I do not plan to belabour this issue, but I do point out that the subject of mortgages is difficult and complicated. I know the Attorney General studied mortgages in law school, and I know that his experience with mortgages would attest to that. I merely point out, as I indicated earlier, that the aspects of this bill that deal with multiple residential tenancy properties are laudable in the main.

I urge the Attorney General to consider making exceptions and being amenable to amendments dealing with single residential tenancy properties.

I will be asking that this bill go to committee of the whole, and I will be proposing certain amendments dealing with residential single-family dwellings. I hope that the Attorney General will instruct and advise his party members about the intent of those amendments and that he himself will consider them, because, as I said earlier, when we are dealing with those single residential units, to affect the ability to obtain a mortgage on those units is going to affect the ability to maintain those units for tenants.

It is also going to affect the ability of a person who wishes to purchase a home to obtain the mortgage financing he is going to need either from a bank or privately. If a lender finds out that a tenant will be using the property and renting part of the demised premises, then the lender assumes a greater risk because of this act, and a lender will not want to advance mortgage moneys in that circumstance. The person who needs that tenant living in the apartment in the basement is not going to be able to get the mortgage money, and if he has to have a tenant to pay that mortgage, he is really met with a catch-22 situation.

I would urge the Attorney General to consider the amendments I will be proposing. I would urge him to consider bringing forward amendments of his own based on some of the legitimate information he has been provided with dealing with the single-family residential premises aspect of this bill. I urge the Attorney General to certainly consider that aspect because I think legitimately the bill can be made better.

1720

Mr Elston: In the absence of our critic, I rise to indicate that some of the items which have been reviewed by the member for Willowdale were of concern to us as well. At one point this bill was introduced in another form, as I recall, and there has been --

An hon member: In another world.

Mr Elston: -- in another world. As the world turns, sometimes legislation takes a different turn, as it were, itself, and here we find the issue of the single-family residence, of course, has been introduced into the legislation. From a lot of perspectives it causes a certain degree of concern because -- as has been indicated not only by the member for Willowdale but also in a more indirect manner by the member for Etobicoke West through his out-of-order but timely interjections from the sidelines -- it directly affects the willingness of the market to provide some investment opportunities with respect to money needed for people to purchase houses.

We are concerned that there are difficulties inherent in introducing that because it complicates the acquisition of affordable housing in a way which sometimes is probably not helpful to a lot of people these days. While we see the drop in the interest rate that has propelled a new series of housing starts which, from my perspective anyway, is a positive sign for the province, it none the less means that as you complicate the arrangements required to obtain the necessary financing, you again begin to dampen the enthusiasm in the market.

It is interesting, of course, that we view a market economy as essential to the wellbeing of Ontario. We view the necessity of establishing very firmly a need for a market economy to remain as able as it can to generate the activity required to keep our economy -- to in this case generate more activity. We see some problems with this bill introducing new complications that might stifle the developments along that line.

Other parts of the bill are quite clearly the work of a previous administration, our administration, and we had brought them to deal with certain problems which had been well known, to concerns well shared in this House before the election of 6 September. For that reason, of course, we support the bulk of it with the concerns which have been expressed about single-family dwellings being added.

That perhaps is sufficient for me to indicate to the House where our party is in relation to the bill. I understand this will be referred to committee of the whole House. If my understanding is correct, that will give some time for others in our party to make some comments with respect to other sections which are of particular interest to them.

I wish to congratulate, even briefly, the member for Willowdale for his analysis, as he has taken us fairly well through a good number of the sections.

We do not always agree with the members to our left, philosophically right, but on occasion we do appreciate the amount of work they have done to analyse, from their point of view, the issues. In this forum the important item is always to raise the issues for consideration, not necessarily to underscore agreement in each case, but to allow the people in the province to understand full well that while the issue is raised there is debate around the critical elements of the issue and that at one stage or another a vote finally determines where the House will fall on any particular item.

I very much respect the work of the member for Willowdale and I look forward to committee of the whole House deliberations which will allow us to do a few things with clause-by-clause.

Mr Ruprecht: I appreciate the research done by the member for Willowdale. He should be congratulated for what he has done for all of us who look at this bill in great detail.

When the Attorney General makes his comments, I would especially like to know what he thinks about the retroactivity of this bill, which goes back to 28 December 1990. I am wondering if the Attorney General is able to tell this House, when he makes his comments, whether a number of people are going to be affected by this immediately. Perhaps he can tell us how many people this bill will affect from 28 December 1990 until today. If he could possibly make those comments I would very much appreciate it.

Once again, I want to thank our own member for Bruce and the member for Willowdale for the research he has performed because I think this will help all of us to make this a better bill.

Mr Tilson: As I understand it, the intent of the existing law is that if you are a mortgagee who has gone into possession of property for any purpose whatsoever and there are tenants on the premises, they can be evicted immediately, as opposed to the obligations of a landlord under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

I understand the intent of the legislation and, as the member for Bruce has indicated, the previous government announced it would change this rule effective in January 1990 to essentially resolve the fact so that mortgagees in possession would be bound by eviction rules as applied to landlords.

However, as I understand it from the previous announcement by the Liberal government, this proposal would not affect the rights of mortgagees of single-family homes with no tenancies at the time of the mortgage. I do not believe the previous legislation went this far.

The policy reflected in this current bill now before the House goes far beyond the announcement of January 1990, and applies to all the rights and obligations of the Landlord and Tenant Act to mortgagees in possession and tenants of the mortgaged premises. It extends to residential premises including the single-family homes.

1730

Ms Poole: I am delighted to make some comments on An Act to amend the Mortgages Act. As my colleague the member for Bruce has pointed out, this legislation in another form was actually introduced in this House almost a year and half ago. The legislation is designed to protect tenants whose landlords default on mortgage payments.

I do not know if any member of this House has ever had a building in his riding where the landlord has gone bankrupt, but I can tell them that there are very serious ramifications. This act provides that mortgagees who take possession of residential rental property will be bound by the residential tenancy provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act as they pertain to evictions, and certainly that protection will be very valuable in the days to come.

In the absence of these amendments, mortgagees would be entitled to evict tenants whose leases were entered into after the date of the mortgage, and the amendments will prevent eviction without cause and will give tenants the normal security of tenure.

The Liberal Party certainly supports the measures in the legislation. They were important then, and in fact we believe they are even more important now. Therefore we will be supporting this legislation on second reading of the bill.

As my colleague the member for Bruce has indicated, there has been an addition to this legislation. The NDP has added a provision to the legislation respecting tenants in single-family homes. This is, I believe, going to be problematic. I was somewhat surprised this amendment was actually added to the act, because as far as I am aware, there has not been a very large problem with tenants in condominiums or single-family residences being unfairly evicted when the owner defaults on the mortgage and the new landlord, whether it be a bank or a property development company or an individual mortgagee, exercises its legal authority to terminate the rental agreement. We really have not seen that as a problem. I am sure in clause-by-clause, as we go into the committee of the whole House, that will be debated further.

I know that the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations has been very supportive of this legislation over the years. In fact, I know they had regular contact with the former Attorney General, the member for St George-St David, and their input was key in the Liberal announcement of this legislation last year. Certainly the tenant movement will be very delighted to see this protection added and will commend the NDP government for continuing with this initiative.

This legislation would be worth while in the best of times, but I think it is particularly relevant that we finalize the legislation as expeditiously as possible, given the current financial and economic climate. With the growing number of bankruptcies, this is indeed going to be a problem and a very real one, so the sooner tenants of this province have that protection, the better.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that we will be supporting this legislation and that we in the Liberal caucus feel it has much to commend it. I say that not because we introduced it, although that is a very strong motivation, but also because I think it is good legislation. I look forward to continuing the debate.

Mr Tilson: As the member for Willowdale has indicated, our party certainly supports the general intent of the legislation, with the exception of the fact that the legislation extends to all residential premises, which of course includes single-family homes, which in turn includes condominium units. It is for that reason that the member for Willowdale will be introducing a proposed amendment for the committee to consider. We feel it causes a great many problems, and I am not going to repeat the well-thought-out and well-presented comments of the member for Willowdale.

Although this is a bill that has been presented by the Attorney General, it does affect the overall issue of housing in Ontario and the philosophy that is being put forward by this government, and specifically the lack of confidence that has been created in the investment community. We have seen it in Bill 4. We are starting to see it in the new permanent legislation, Bill 121, that was introduced this week.

I think that with this lack of confidence there are going to be more and more individuals, more and more financial institutions, more and more lending institutions that are going to be more and more reluctant to invest in the housing stock of this province. Bill 40 is another example that is going to create that hesitancy in Ontario. I believe this is just one more way of tightening the noose, as far as the investment community is concerned, with the housing stock in Ontario.

I believe, and I have referred to this certainly during the Bill 4 debate, that we need private housing in this province, that we need private investment in housing in this province. Bill 4 and Bill 121 have had a major effect in shattering that confidence, and Bill 40 certainly will not help. Why invest in the building when your rights to possession as a mortgagee are going to be jeopardized?

I am referring specifically to the single-family unit, the house, as opposed to the multiple dwelling, because there may be a tenancy agreement that may be unpalatable to the mortgagee, that the mortgagee may know very little about, that may have been created after the owner purchased the house or put financing on the house, and if the mortgagee ends up acquiring that house through power of sale proceedings or foreclosure proceedings or some other means, it will be very difficult for him to protect his investment.

I believe investors in this type of housing stock will say, "Why commit ourselves?" They will take a second look. They will make it more difficult for individuals to obtain mortgage financing on their property for renovations, for improving the capital structure of the building to sell or resell their property. It is going to be a problem that mortgagees are going to look at and take a second look at, so I would ask the Attorney General to consider the proposed amendment that is going to be put forward by the member for Willowdale.

In looking specifically at section 45 of Bill 40, reference is made to obtaining title by foreclosure or power of sale, so I assume, although it is not clear -- I hope the government will take a second look at the interpretation of this -- that it applies to a mortgagee in possession. Does it apply to a mortgagee who forecloses, has title vested in him or her or it, or does it apply to a purchaser in a power of sale proceeding? That section does not refer to that. I would hope that would be dealt with in the committee and perhaps that section could be cleaned up.

It seems to me that government legislation such as this, although the intent is to protect the tenant -- I understand that, because certainly a tenant should be treated equally in all these types of ventures. But in trying to protect the tenant, it may result in being unfair to those it was intended to protect, including the tenant.

1740

I believe this entire matter should be reviewed, because all parties must be considered; otherwise all parties may suffer -- this was referred to by the member for Willowdale -- both tenants and landlords, because no one will lend on the security of rental property so that it can be repaired. It may well be that mortgage financing will be required to improve the quality of life of a tenant, to repair the building, and mortgagees will take a second look at investing in the single-family house because of this difficulty.

The other comment that I wish to refer to, and again I am referring specifically to how it applies to the single-family unit, is that over the years our system has developed in foreclosure proceedings and power-of-sale proceedings. If a mortgagee wants to sell, for whatever reason, whether through power of sale, foreclosure or simply acquiring possession, he has to sell to someone who is going to have to live there himself.

That is pursuant to section 51. That section states you need to obtain the purchaser's undertaking in writing. "The person described in subsection 45(1)" -- and that was the section I just referred to -- "shall obtain from the purchaser an undertaking in writing that states that the purchaser requires the single-family home or any part of it occupied by a tenant for the purpose of occupation by himself or herself, his or her spouse or a child," and it goes on as to for whom this must be obtained in writing. You must serve this on the tenant, along with the notice of termination, at least 60 days in advance of the termination. If the tenants do not move out by the termination date, you will have to bring an application to evict them.

That whole process will take anywhere from a minimum of 30 days to probably a maximum of at least 60 days. I cannot conceive of any purchaser signing an undertaking 60 days ahead of time in the hope that the deal will close because the tenants are going to move out. If you are a purchaser, you want to move into the place. You are going to sell your existing home. You are going to move into a new home. You are going to sign an undertaking in the faint hope that the tenant will vacate the premises in 60 days and that the deal will close because the tenants will then move out and it will not be necessary to bring an application to evict them; if they do not, the owner will have to make an application to evict them.

It is going to cause a great deal of difficulty in the commercial real estate world of purchasers who want to buy property. They are going to stay away from these types of properties. They are going to be very reluctant to buy them, so the practical effect, I believe, is that it will make it impossible to sell the property except as rental property. That may be the real intent of this government. That may be what they are really trying to do, so that the only way you can sell this type of property is as rental property.

Most transactions today that go through power-of-sale proceedings are put through very rapidly. Agreements of purchase and sale are prepared and closing dates are set forward. Most purchasers are looking at a bargain. They want to buy and move in quickly. That is how the system works. It is not going to work that way any more because of the reluctance of purchasers to sign these types of agreements.

I ask that the members of the government listen to the member for Willowdale when he puts forward his amendment at the committee stage. I do not think the government has really thought that problem through, nor the havoc it is going to create in the real estate world.

Ms Poole: I am very pleased to hear that the member for Dufferin-Peel supported the Liberal legislation and that the only thing about this legislation that the member for Dufferin-Peel, a good Conservative, does not like is the NDP amendment to bring in single-family dwellings. I am just very happy to see that the Conservatives have finally conceded that the Liberal government has done something right, and although their acknowledgement of this comes somewhat late, we are still delighted that they are able to tell us it is so.

Hon Mr Hampton: There are a few points I would like to respond to that some members mentioned earlier in the debate.

First, I would like all members to know that before this legislation was introduced, there was a very long consultation period with both what you might call organized lenders and, to a certain extent, less organized lenders. We are aware that lenders are not in unanimous agreement with all parts of the legislation. However, I think it is worth noting that there was not vehement opposition. When we reached what we thought was an acceptable compromise, they indicated that it was still not exactly what they wanted, but there was also an indication that they thought they could live with it. What you have here is very much compromise legislation, and it is compromise legislation with respect to the single-family home as well.

The other general point I would like to make is that, really, what this legislation is trying to do is to restore tenants who happen to live in mortgaged premises to the position that we thought was their position in law in any case before an interpretation by a district court at that time upset that interpretation of the law. Really, what we are trying to do here is put tenants who live in mortgaged property on the same footing as tenants who are not living in mortgaged property, or at least in property where there has been a default on the mortgage.

There were some specific comments raised and I want to respond to those.

First, there was some commentary on the availability of basement apartments. I think it is the case that banks generally know that an owner will rent, and banks in fact count on the revenue from a basement apartment in making a loan to an owner. I think it is fair to say that banks will not throw away the loan business with respect to a single-family residence that has a basement apartment. They are generally aware that it adds to the income flow and of course they are interested in that.

It is also worth recognizing that the mortgage market is a competitive market. If there are timid lenders out there, we will find other lenders who are much more aggressive and will certainly entertain these types of situations. In any case, tenants are not worried about this.

1750

I think I should also point out that in terms of the ability to resell, the feeling is that the impact on the ability to resell will not be extensive and it will not unduly hamper the efforts to resell.

Finally, a question was asked as to how many people will be affected by this. I think what all members need to know is that as the economy enters further and further into a rather severe recession, there are more and more mortgage defaults. We are facing a number of situations where tenants who are living in properties that have been mortgaged and the mortgage goes into default are faced with eviction. In fact, the Ottawa newspaper carried a case today. The member for Ottawa East gave me a copy of the article from the Ottawa Citizen. It points out that in one building alone up to 300 tenants may be facing eviction. Taking that as a guidepost, we are perhaps dealing with thousands of tenants who potentially could be evicted. Certainly at the Ministry of the Attorney General we are receiving a lot of phone calls asking us about when this legislation may go through, because this is legislation that tenants recognize will affect them and will affect them in a positive way.

I want to say, finally, that there has been a great deal of consultation conducted on this legislation. While we are certainly aware that not everyone is unanimous in their commendation of it, we are of the view that where there is opposition it is not vehement opposition. Indeed, some lenders feel that the effect of the legislation will be negligible or next to negligible and their concern with the legislation is not great at this time.

I thank the members for their comments and I look forward to committee of the whole House to consider some of the amendments.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: Just briefly, when I had asked in my question to the Attorney General that he kindly answer the retroactivity of this bill, he nodded kindly. I understood that nod meant he would answer that question, which he did not. I hope that he might in future, before all this will take place.

FAMILY SUPPORT PLAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LE REGIME DES OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES ENVERS LA FAMILLE

Mr Hampton moved third reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the Law related to the Enforcement of Support and Custody Orders.

M. Hampton propose la troisième lecture du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives a l'execution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Hon Mr Hampton: I would like to take this opportunity to once again extend my gratitude to all those who helped us develop and improve this piece of legislation. We have had the benefit of the views and suggestions of many individuals and organizations. Many people presented their views to the standing committee on administration of justice. Others wrote to us with their comments. All of the comments and suggestions that we received were reviewed and considered. Many resulted in important changes to Bill 17, including changes suggested by both opposition parties.

I would also like to thank each of the members of the standing committee on administration of justice and the committee of the whole House for their assistance. Although the process at times seemed rather slow, a lot of excellent work was accomplished. I appreciate the very detailed attention given to Bill 17. I think we will all benefit from the breadth of experience and knowledge of all of those who have participated in this process.

I especially want to thank my parliamentary assistant, who put in a number of weeks of work on this. Some of it, I am told, was rather painful from time to time.

The support deduction plan proposed by Bill 17 makes compliance with support orders a priority in Ontario. Currently, only 36% of cases filed with the support and custody orders enforcement program are receiving any money; the balance are receiving nothing. A recent study conducted by the federal Department of Justice found that approximately one half of divorced women with children had total incomes which put them below the poverty line.

Figures like this are simply unacceptable. The introduction of support deduction is one way of helping these families. The changes which are being introduced will result in more support orders being effectively enforced. Together with these legislative changes, the Ministry of the Attorney General will be launching a public awareness campaign to inform the public about the serious problem of support default and its effects. Our goal is to change the way society views the importance of paying support and to make it clear that the failure to pay support affects us all.

As I have said before, the introduction of support deduction alone will not solve the massive social problem of support default and child poverty. However, it is a step in the right direction. It is up to all of us to work together to change the attitudes of our peers, friends and co-workers and to make it clear that failure to pay support is not acceptable.

I think together we can make a difference and I think Bill 17 will go a long way towards making that difference.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983 and the Land Titles Act.

The House adjourned at 1759.