Journal des débats 1993-juin-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I'm very pleased to be here this morning with respect to moving second reading of this bill, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases, which is known as the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act, 1993.

I'd first of all like to acknowledge that, although I don't see that they've arrived yet -- oh, I see some -- we have some people here representing the Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation. I'd like to thank them for coming this morning, and particularly, I have a representative from the land lease community in my own area, Sandy Cove Acres, and Mr Gordon Mills has many representatives from his community in Wilmot Creek. I must thank the federation for its contribution towards my bill in bringing forward the problems and reinforcing the need for legislation in this area.

I'd also like to thank my colleagues for giving me the time to present this bill today. I was lower down in the original order and I'd like to thank them for letting me substitute for them so we could introduce this important legislation during this session. I appreciate also the support of my colleagues for this legislation.

The purpose of the bill is to provide additional statutory protection to tenants who lease land for use as a site for their mobile home or land lease community home. A land lease community home is a permanent structure used as a home and situate on leased land, and many members, including myself, have received concerns about security of tenure, weak bargaining power of tenants and unreasonable restrictions. This legislation addresses some of the major concerns of tenants.

My interest in this legislation has grown out of two facts: my practice of law in the city of Barrie for the last 20 years, particularly in the real estate area, and my involvement in the political aspects.

I might just explain that for many years, I've acted for many people in the past who were residents of the land lease community Sandy Cove Acres to the south, and I had many representations to me and concerns with respect to their problems with respect to marketability of their home, the problems they had with respect to unreasonable restrictions, the insecurity of tenure they had, the fact they felt they didn't have sufficient security and also, at that time, a concern about unreasonable rent increases.

Also, my area had lost two mobile home parks in the last three years as the home parks were converted to other uses, one of them a subdivision. Again, what this means to residents of a mobile home park is that they will not be able to find, usually, another place to put their mobile home. They will lose their equity in their home, and this is quite devastating. People who live in these homes are usually people on lower incomes, many of them are elderly people, often into their late 80s.

I believe that mobile home parks and land lease communities provide a necessary form of low-cost housing in Ontario, and I think anyone who believes that they form that type of necessary, alternative, low-cost housing ought to support providing them the same protection that other tenants have and protecting their equity and protecting their marketability.

The subjects of the legislation, I might add, are with respect to mobile homes and mobile home parks, and land lease, community-owned homes and land lease communities. It covers both areas.

The land lease communities are now protected only by the Rent Control Act, 1992, but are not covered by the Rental Housing Protection Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Planning Act. The other subject of my legislation, mobile home parks, are presently protected by the Landlord and Tenant Act and covered by the Planning Act. There seems to be no logic whatsoever to have less rights apply to an owner of a land lease community home than to an owner of a mobile home, particularly in view of the fact that when I talk about protecting equity interests, the equity interest of the land lease community home is probably greater than that of the mobile home.

Both land lease community homes and mobile homes are not protected by the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act. Again, one could ask, why are tenants, who have no equity in their homes, being protected under the Rental Housing Protection Act while owners of mobile homes or land lease community homes, who, as I indicated, have that substantial equity, do not have such protection?

For many residents in Simcoe county and throughout Ontario who are owners of mobile homes or land lease community homes, such protection is long overdue. Simcoe county has the largest number of mobile home units of any county or district in Ontario. That's approximately somewhat over 2,000. In addition, Simcoe county has approximately 2,000 land lease community homes, again, the largest of any district or county in Ontario.

As I indicated earlier, Simcoe county has lost two mobile home parks in the last few years, with mobile home owners basically losing the equity in their homes when their parks were closed. Another mobile home park is at risk in my area, and it's at risk with closure. The residents received notices of tentative eviction. Unfortunately for them, the owner was unable to effect a deal to sell the park, so they're still living there, but they're living on the verge of losing their equity, and I think it's important that we now provide that protection. The question is, do we want to protect the equity, the tenure of ownership of owners of mobile homes? Should we not protect a low-cost home ownership alternative?

It's interesting to note that mobile homes and land lease community homes are much less of an ownership alternative in Ontario than in the US, and I would suggest that one of the reasons for it is that it doesn't have the security of tenure or the protection or the marketability that such type of ownership has south of the border.

1010

My bill addresses the most pressing need of protecting the tenure of land lease homes and mobile homes by amending the Rental Housing Protection Act to have it apply to land lease community homes and mobile homes.

The provisions of the act are deemed to be effective May 19, 1993, with respect to the prohibitions against conversion. The amendment also provides for exemption from the prohibitions under the act in prescribed circumstances where the conversion is to a cooperative which will be resident-controlled or to a condominium.

This amendment will hopefully restrict the displacement of owners of homes in both mobile home parks and land lease community homes.

My bill also amends the Landlord and Tenant Act. There's no reason why the owners of land lease community homes are deprived of the protection of that act. It must have been an oversight in the past. My amendment corrects that.

It also invalidates first rights of refusal on the sale of a home. It permits tenants to place "For Sale" signs on their home. It creates a reserve fund obligation for the landlord for those types of services which normally would be provided by a municipality. It excludes seasonal mobile homes from additional protection under the act.

My bill also amends the Planning Act to provide that land lease communities are subject to the same provisions as mobile home parks with respect to planning controls. This specifically ensures that site plan control and subdivision provisions will apply to land lease communities.

I believe this package of amendments enhances the protection of land lease community home owners and mobile homes. The legislation is complex and technical, as is the law of landlord and tenant, and planning law. I know there'll be amendments and I know there'll be improvements as we move to public hearings with respect to this legislation. I look forward to receiving the suggestions for improvement.

I urge all members to support this legislation to give us a framework to start with, to work with, to provide the needed protection for these residents and these owners in our mobile homes parks. I look forward to further discussion in committee on this legislation.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very happy to speak to this bill. I think the intent and the effort put forward by my colleague Mr Wessenger is to be commended.

I understand what he's attempting to do with this private member's legislation. However, I must say that this bill is desperately flawed. There are problems with it that I think will jeopardize this type of accommodation for good.

I also want to say that if the government, and I say this to Mr Wessenger -- the effort put forth by the government to recognize this type of accommodation as affordable accommodation which is provided in the private sector, the very kind of accommodation that we see a lack of in this province, and a lack of effort on the part of the government to stimulate activity in the private sector, to continue to provide private sector, affordable accommodation -- this government is doing very precious little in the private sector to put forward initiatives which would see the creation and the increase in affordable housing.

The government has halted any programs to provide government land for affordable housing in the private sector, getting the private sector to work with government to provide that affordable housing.

This is an area -- this sector -- which has that affordability component: providing affordable homes for people who need them in the private sector. For that reason, I say to you that this provision, this legislation, is very important in that we do not jeopardize this sector.

I understand the need for protection of tenants and I think there are a number of things which have been put forward in this bill which speak to that and can be applauded, but I think this bill is fatally flawed and I want to point out the ways in which it is.

Under the provisions of the amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act, the concept of a reserve fund, which is what is being called for under Bill 21 -- let's look at that for a moment -- would work rather well for new establishments, but for older parks it's not feasible. Quite frankly, there wouldn't have been enough time for the reserve funds at that point to have provided sufficient cushion to meet the needs of the older parks, which obviously would have greater amounts of capital needs over time. Those funds would be additional to what would be required in a new establishment, and let's face it, the amount of cushion there would not be sufficient to meet those requirements.

With those provisions in Bill 21, you are seriously going to hamper the efforts of landlords to meet those capital needs. So I think this reserve fund is a basic flaw in Bill 21. Seriously, I think it would destroy landlords. I think we would see the complete annihilation of this type of sector in the housing community, and as a result, there would not be much to commend this legislation when that was brought about.

So I think we have some serious problems with the reserve fund, how it's going to work. Quite frankly, you already have the imposition of rent controls, and the reserve fund calls for amounts to be contributed from rent. As a result of rent controls already putting a cap on the amount that could be granted in the form of rents by tenants to landlords, it's a double whammy for landlords. There are no additional funds to make up for those capital needs and things like snow removal, garbage collection, that are already operational costs. They're not capital costs, they're additional to this. So I think you have problems with that.

As a result of that section alone, I cannot support this legislation, because you threaten the very survival of landlords in this area. You would lead to the demise of this type of housing without giving due consideration for what this means; therefore, I have problems with that.

Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, you would amend this to include mobile home parks. The problem with it is that you would effectively preclude conversion to co-op type of accommodation. Therefore, that's another flaw in this legislation. Under the Rental Housing Protection Act, the amendments that you're making would effectively not allow for the conversion to co-ops. I have a problem with that. I think that's something that would also be an option available to people living in this type of accommodation that you would not like to prevent, at least I hope not.

Under the Planning Act, certainly the amendments there call for changes which would now prohibit landlords from doing the kind of work to service lots, and, with respect to the size of lots, that would all be under the discretion given to municipalities. I think there's a problem with respect to the provisions under that section.

I'm running out of time, because my colleague also wants to speak to this legislation. I've just quickly pointed out what are the basic flaws in this legislation. Some of the other provisions would be amenable to us, but I think these speak to the heart of the legislation and the fundamental principles behind the legislation. I have difficulty supporting this and allowing it to go to committee, so I will not support this legislation.

1020

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The actual consideration behind the bill is certainly something that I think all members would agree with; however, I feel that this legislation is very flawed in the approach that is being taken.

I'm concerned that when we consider that two of the particular developments that are within the areas of the member, Sandy Cove Acres and Wilmot Creek -- I know for a fact that the owners of those developments were never consulted. The member only consulted with the tenants, and that seems a most inappropriate way of proceeding. The intent of making sure that the tenancies are protected is, as I've said, valuable, but what we do with this bill is that we produce once again another confrontational approach. It is fair to say that with the imposition of rent controls on these parks, and then with this bill, it would be impossible to contemplate that any further such developments as Wilmot Creek or Sandy Cove, to name just two, would ever again be developed in this province as long as such legislation was in place.

I want to turn to some testimony that we received during Bill 4 hearings. This was from Martin Grove Village in Waterloo. I'm just going to read some extracts from a letter that they presented in their brief to Bill 4:

"I am the owner and operator of a mobile home park located in the township of Woolwich immediately adjacent to the northerly boundary of the city of Waterloo. There are presently 78 homes in the village, housing in excess of 200 people, most of whom are relatively low-income and retired, elderly people. The tenants own their own mobile home and lease the land from me. As landlord, I provide hydro, water and septic sanitary services to each of these homes. These are not seasonal or recreational trailers, but homes in which, under the permitted zoning, the residents live year-round. Some residents have been living in the village for in excess of 30 years. Most residents have their entire life savings invested in their mobile homes.

"Over the past few years I have been engaged in discussions with the township of Woolwich and the regional municipality of Waterloo, the Grand River Conservation Authority and the Ministry of the Environment with respect to the designation of these lands under the local official plan as a settlement area which would allow for the expansion of this existing settlement as a mobile/modular home park.

"The required official plan amendment and zone change application have been approved in principle, subject to certain conditions which would lead to the required replacement of the existing hydro, water and septic sanitary system. These existing systems are approximately 30 years old and are recognized by me as well as the municipal and other government authorities as being very much in need of replacement. Engineering reports initiated by me confirm that the need for replacement arises out of normal wear and tear."

I'm going to just skip on a little bit. Essentially, this community says:

"Current rents average $181 per month, which includes $50 per month for taxes and about $40 per month for maintenance. This rental fee is far below market rent and provides for no more than a break-even point for me. Certainly, there is no capacity in me to provide for the extraordinary capital expenditures of replacing existing services without an increase in rent."

So here we have the problem that, having brought these trailer parks under rent controls, we now have the double whammy of various municipal and governmental services saying that services need to be upgraded. The landlord in these parks has to operate as collecting the taxes and has to provide all of those services which are normally provided by a municipality. So to the extent that these people cannot make any money out of their operation -- and I'm particularly thinking not so much of the Wilmot Creek and the Sandy Cove Acres, but those ones which have been in existence for a longer period of time, where they're not so much mobile homes as trailers but they are used year-round. We are having the problem that the operator cannot make any money, doesn't have the money to upgrade the services and yet is being told that he must, and now we have legislation which will essentially not allow him even to be able to sell the land for some further development at the time the leases come forward. That is very troubling and goes to a lot of serious questions about property rights in this province and the constant erosion of property rights that we're seeing.

But most importantly, the concern is, how do we protect those tenants who live in communities and the people who potentially would be tenants in an expanded community such as Wilmot Creek in the future? Certainly the landlords of these developments will not see fit to expand those communities to the detriment of people who will be retiring in the future.

So for this reason, we have great trouble with the thrust of this bill. We certainly say that we are on side in terms of protecting those tenants, and I believe we can find ways of protecting those tenants and protecting the values of the properties that are owned both by the tenants, who own the mobile homes, and by the owners of those developments, in another way. But this bill certainly is not the way to achieve those ends, so for this reason I will be opposing it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): It's a pleasure to rise in the House today and talk to my colleague from Simcoe to Bill 21.

I was interested in the comments that the member for Lawrence made about needing affordable housing. In Hansard yesterday he got up and he said this affordable housing is a complete waste.

Interjection.

Mr Mills: That's what you said in Hansard.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lawrence on a point of order.

Mr Cordiano: Mr Speaker, I have to rise because the member is completely misconstruing what I had said yesterday. I was referring to the non-profit housing program, not affordable housing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a point of order. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I'd just like to recognize the wonderful people from my riding of Durham East who are here today to support this bill. They are in there; they are up here.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the people who are in the galleries to refrain from applauding. This is unruly. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: I think it speaks oceans to this bill and the concerns when 80 people from Wilmot Creek have come here at their own expense this morning by private bus. They're in the process of getting in here; some are here, some are in the gallery. I think that speaks oodles.

When I attended an all-candidates meeting at the Roundhouse in Wilmot Creek way back in August 1990, one of the things that came out of that all-candidates meeting was addressing the concerns of the folks who lived there. Those were their concerns, and I made a vow that, should I win Durham East -- and there were lots of people very surprised that I did, particularly the Conservatives -- I would make this one of my focuses, to get these things right.

1030

When I was elected, I had the pleasure of having an intern serve with me, and I directed that intern to research this matter for three months. It's a very complex piece of legislation, which I commend my colleague and friend Mr Wessenger for. It involved the Attorney General's office, it involved Municipal Affairs, it involved the Ministry of Housing. It was complex. After my intern had done his three-month research, we went to Wilmot Creek with the results. Our ideas of how we will resolve that were soundly endorsed by about 500 people who were in that Roundhouse hall that night as we gave this presentation.

I say to the member for York Mills that he's out of touch with reality if he doesn't recognize that the people in this type of leased-lot communities need protection; they've been crying out for it. And then he has the audacity to stand in this place and say, "What are the landlords going to do?"

I say that the landlords should have addressed those inequities a long time ago and we wouldn't be here today doing this bill if they'd recognized that.

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would ask the members in the gallery to refrain from applauding; otherwise I will have to take away your privilege and you won't be able to stay where you are.

Mr Mills: These folks, as you know, are in their golden years and this is so important to them. I guess they feel it to be such an important piece of legislation that they have difficulty in hiding their enthusiasm for the wonderful work my colleague for Simcoe East has done in bringing this here today.

I'm limited on time. I have to go away and sit on a committee and I have other members of our caucus who represent leased-lot communities who also want to speak. I just say to those members over there that this has been brought about by circumstances that could not be addressed any other way except through this legislation.

Again, full marks to Paul Wessenger for his work on this bill and bringing it forward in this House today. I hope everybody in here supports it, because, believe it or not, every community that you live in, there are people in similar circumstances and they're looking to you members for support. When the votes comes later in today, they will take note of all those people who do not support this, believe you me.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): In the very short time that I have, I want to address three issues, but before I do I have to make the comment that they've brought all these marvellous, wonderful people -- I am very close to seniors as I approach that period of my golden lifetime, but to bring them here under the assumption that this bill is going to become public law is a sham, an absolute sham.

The member from Simcoe Centre knows that. Your government of the day was not prepared to bring this legislation forward; it in fact died on the order paper on the last occasion. These people should know that this is an exercise in the height of public relations and this bill will never make it past this second reading, if it gets passed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Thank you. The member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: There have been only two private bills -- I don't like fooling seniors the way you people are trying to do it. There have only been two bills in the history of the Legislature that have ever made it to public policy as a result of private members' bills. One of them was on daylight saving, which moved it a week ahead; the second one was Mr Mahoney's when he brought in the age qualification for gambling in the corner stores --

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: -- because your government didn't have the good sense to realize that eight-year-olds were in fact going to be spending their lunch money on buying lottery tickets for football games.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Brampton South has the floor. Those who want to have the opportunity to voice your opinion, you'll have a chance to do so, but please respect the member for Brampton South.

Mr Callahan: So I find it really incredible that you would try to fool these good people who have come all the way here from Barrie and other areas.

Having said that, I think it's incredible that you never bothered to talk to both sides of the picture here. I have three points to address. The first one was that these contracts have been around for 25 years. People obviously have lived in many of these communities, at least the three I'm familiar with, for 25 years.

The NDP seems to think it can interfere with everybody's rights, take away their rights in midstream if it wants. There are at least four provisions in this bill that are retroactive, which is clearly contrary to any principle of English equity, any principle of English justice, any principle of democracy.

The first-right-of-refusal clause makes sense because these people live in a community where, if there is not a right of first refusal, you could have someone moving into that community, and it's a very tight-knit community, perhaps who would not be desirable, who could not financially carry the burden. Therefore, a greater burden is thrust upon those residents who already live there.

The question of receiving 95% of the value of the item: If they sold it through a real estate agent they'd probably pay 5% or 6%, so you eliminate the necessity of having to go through that exercise by this being done in this way.

Finally, the question of signs. Just think about it this way: If in your community, in one of your subdivisions, because of a downturn in the economy or for whatever other reason, every house had a For Sale sign on it and you were trying to sell your house and you took somebody through that subdivision, they'd look around and they'd say: "My heavens, who wants to move into this community, because they're all selling their homes. There must be something wrong." This is precisely what can happen.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: I love you people over there. You put your views forward and then you shout and act up like children, taking away from my time to have an opportunity in a democratic chamber to be able to express the views that are there.

It makes sense. Have any of you been to these communities? Probably not. I would venture to say that many of you have not even read the bill that has been presented by the member from Simcoe Centre -- simply because you wouldn't understand it, probably. It is a bill so complex that, even if it were to be passed, which is highly unlikely -- in fact, as I say, looking at the history of this place, it's unlikely that the government will ever pick up that piece of legislation.

The member from Simcoe Centre has brought in a piece of legislation. He's brought all these people a great distance, promising them the world. I have to tell you people, you have had a nice trip, you will see a great exercise in public relations here, but you wait and see if the New Democratic Party brings that legislation in. I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts they don't. The fact is that they've not bothered to tell you the reasons why some of these aspects are there. Some of my colleagues have addressed them, the question of financial viability, the question of continuing these accommodations.

I know for a fact, in talking with seniors I know who live in these parks, that they are quite happy. They live in a seniors' setting. The people they're dealing with are seniors. They have many things in common. It's almost like a country-club-style operation. You start putting signs up all over the place, and you'll find that will have a detrimental effect on the community itself.

The member from Simcoe Centre said that in his previous life as a lawyer he used to have people coming in to him and complaining about the restrictions in these contracts. Well, my question to the member from Simcoe Centre is, as a lawyer, what did you do about it? Did you simply let them sign the contracts? If you did, then you must have thought the conditions were not unreasonable. Why didn't you remind them of it? Why do you bring it forward here in the Legislature and attempt to convince these people that you can change the law? I would suggest that your responsibility would have been to have told these people that the contractual rights were too interfering with their rights.

Suddenly, it just becomes a hot political issue: "Let's see how we can pacify these people." Well, I have to say to you that I find that regrettable. I think it's regrettable to do it to any group from Ontario, but particularly to do it to people who are seniors, who are retired, whose income is limited, who perhaps are looking to live in tranquillity in their golden years, and you bus them all down here with the anticipation that this bill is going to become law.

I say to you that Mr Rae, the Premier of this province, did not consider this bill to be significant enough to bring it in as a piece of government legislation. He required you to do it. In fact, it was so significant that, in the first session of this Parliament, it died on the order paper. So I find that really incredible. This game of political chess that's played is absolutely and unbelievably bad.

The member from Durham East says that he made it a promise and that he's fulfilling this promise. Well, I have to tell you, it's no wonder the people don't believe politicians any more, because when politicians make promises like that and then bring it into a forum such as this -- our present structure of the Legislature does not allow for it to get anyplace -- I suggest it's a sham.

I'm going to be voting against this because I don't believe that pulling the wool over the eyes of particularly good seniors in this province is fair. In addition to that, if this matter does pass, it should certainly go to public hearings so that both sides of the coin can be heard.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I just want to take a few minutes on this bill, because I find that the bill is just another imposition on the owner of the land, the landlord or whatever you wish to refer to him as. First of all, these problems that are being identified can be handled very well at the municipal level. I know in my riding you can have the bylaw --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): They don't think so. They don't agree with you.

1040

Mr Jordan: Perhaps when their park was established, the municipality did not in fact have the proper bylaw in place to protect the tenant, but we don't need to come from this level of government to protect the tenant in a mobile home park.

The mobile home park under the jurisdiction of the municipality can very well pass local legislation that will give the required protection to the tenants of that park and then you have an understanding from the beginning right at the municipal level on the conditions under which you establish a home in that park. So on the basis that this is more entanglement, if you will, of the provincial government with local municipal government, I would have to say that I could not support the bill.

I do not say that the tenants and the land being leased by the different people in these parks do not need the attention of the municipal law, but they sure don't need a bill such as this to be put in place. And as the previous speaker pointed out, this will never come into place anyhow, so you might better be concentrating at home with your local government and getting the proper legislation in place at the municipal level so that it actually applies to that mobile home park that the concern is concentrated on.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I would like to congratulate my colleague the member from Simcoe Centre for bringing the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act to this House and I would like to thank him on behalf of Middlesex tenants, some of whom are here today, because they will benefit from this legislation. And I must say, my constituents, the people of Middlesex, who live in leased-lot communities have waited for Bill 21 for a very, very long time and have shown great courage in helping this government and me particularly to pursue this legislation.

Leased-lot communities represent an important opportunity for the provision of affordable housing. This affordability needs to be protected. This housing stock must be protected because the people who need it, who utilize it, are for the most part seniors on fixed incomes. Leased-lot mobile home parks give these seniors the opportunity to live independently and to be part of a caring, mutually supportive community. In order for these communities to survive, the costs associated with residents must be reasonable and cannot be allowed to rise unreasonably.

In Middlesex, tenants were faced with increases in 1988-89 of more than 12% and in 1990-91 of more than 11%. Bill 121, the 1992 Rent Control Act, put an end to these huge rent increases. That government bill protects Middlesex tenants, and I regard this legislation, Bill 21, as an important companion piece to the Rent Control Act because Bill 21 extends the provisions of the Rental Housing Protection Act to leased-lot communities, assures the continued availability of such affordable housing stock.

Tenants in leased-lot communities will now have recourse through the Ontario Municipal Board to appeal any municipally approved conversion of their rental units. Fears expressed by my constituents that their communities could be converted to other uses and their equity lost and them left with no place for their modular homes have now finally been addressed.

So we have rent control in Bill 121 and protection of land lease communities as part of the affordable housing stock in Bill 21. Bill 21 also extends part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act to leased-lot communities. This does a number of things, but I'd like to focus specifically on the right of sale of modular homes by their owners. Under this bill, landlords can no longer be given or demand first refusal on the sale of a home. Tenants now are free to place For Sale signs on their units. Imagine that, Mr Speaker: anyone in this province not being free to put a sign on their homes. It's just unspeakable.

They are also free to place the sale of those units in the hands of an outside real estate agent. For Middlesex residents, this effectively eliminates the possibility of a landlord interfering in the sale of their property. Unfortunately, some landlords have insisted upon acting exclusively as the realty agent for mobile home sales within their parks and have collected commissions, some as high as 8%. That's two to two and a half percentage points higher than outside agents charge. Some landlords have actually discouraged prospective buyers, blocked the sale of mobile homes by their owners and then have offered the frustrated and often desperate tenant-owner a much-reduced price for that home.

I want you to consider that these tenants at the mercy of unscrupulous landlords are often seniors on fixed incomes, sometimes frail, sometimes vulnerable, sometimes easily intimidated. These people are among all in our society who should never be wilfully harmed, intimidated or preyed upon by anyone. I'm pleased that Bill 21 places into law provisions to prevent this kind of abuse of my constituents, including our seniors.

I would like to leave time for other members of our caucus to speak to this legislation and would conclude by pledging my support for this bill brought forward by the member of Simcoe Centre. It will help to bring a measure of tranquillity to Ontario leased-lot retirement communities.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to join in this debate today. I've had a lot of experience with regard to mobile home parks in my riding. We have Big Cedar, which is owned by the residents. It took some time to get it in that ownership. We have Fergus Hill Estates that just this past week has made arrangements or is looking to make arrangements to sell the lots that are in the park to the residents in that park for about $17,000 a lot.

During the last election campaign, the member of the New Democratic Party indicated in my riding that he would encourage the government to bring in legislation to change the act so that the people who live in these mobile home parks would have the right of ownership. Well, I expect that would happen, but the right of ownership comes with purchasing the lots and agreements with the owners. There's no way that anybody is going to own the land that they're on without purchasing it. A lot of people indicate that they want to do that, and I think it can happen. I know Big Cedar went through many different problems to get it into the ownership of the people who are there. I think that's the right and the proper way to do it.

But the right and the proper way for this government to deal with it is in government legislation. Most of the members know that private members' bills here don't go anywhere. What they do is allow you to have a good discussion on the subject at hand to bring out the pros and cons of what this legislation is all about.

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): What happened to Cunningham's bill? Where is it?

Mr McLean: The member is chatting over there when he should be listening to the facts as brought before this House with regard to mobile home parks.

So I say to you: Why is the government not bringing in legislation to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act? Why are they bringing in a private member's bill which is going to go nowhere? It's not going anywhere, so the people might as well know that.

I know the concern that the member has had and the pressure that he has had from the church, the old church place in Barrie. There are others within the area that -- there's pressure on it, but you're not going to amend the Landlord and Tenant Act in any private member's bill. It's totally impossible to do that. It could happen, but it is very unlikely.

Why isn't the government bringing in the legislation to deal with it? They're not. So I say, until that happens, then this isn't going anywhere.

The Landlord and Tenant Act is there. They want: "The definition of 'residential premises' in section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act is amended by inserting after 'means'...'subject to section 128.2."'

"The definition of 'residential premises' in section 1 of the act is repealed and the following substituted:...'land intended and used as a site for a mobile home or a land lease community home used for residential purposes, whether or not the landlord also supplies the mobile home"' park.

A lot of questions in this bill are unanswered, and I can tell you that this bill will not go anywhere other than get the first reading, the second reading here, and maybe referred to committee.

1050

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm really pleased to rise on this bill today, because right now, at this moment, though we've got a lot of people here from land lease communities, right out there we've got a number of people sitting in the community centre right in Sutton-By-The-Lake and they're watching this on television. So when the members of this House stand up and say, "Well, you've only got 80 people here and it's not going to go anywhere because we don't care and we're not going to let a private member's bill go anywhere," those people are listening and those people are supporters.

It's time that we had legislation come forward that's going to represent the needs of a lot of people, and this does that. It recognizes that people who are in land lease communities are different than other types of tenants. They haven't had that sort of recognition, and it's time that we did that.

You know, Mr Speaker, in this House we do a number of things. Sometimes there's a lot of rhetoric. Sometimes we present petition after petition on a lot of things we are really concerned about. Last year I presented petition after petition to this Legislature, and the reason I did was that I was concerned about the residents of Sutton-By-The-Lake. We stand in our place and, "I've got a petition whereas the residents of," and, you know, sometimes people just don't seem to listen.

If I take a look at this petition that I did present to this Legislature, I could take a look at a lot of the clauses and they're in this legislation. Some of them we acted upon when we took a look and changed the Rent Control Act. Last year we changed it. So what are the amendments? Before we even got to this point, it has already been taken care of.

We talk about, "Whereas the residents feel that the government of Ontario should examine...no protection against conversion to other uses which would result in the loss of home owners' equity." Well, this is covered, and I want to applaud the member from Simcoe Centre for bringing it forward.

Another clause here, "Whereas there are often arbitrary rules set by landlords and owners of land lease communities which place unfair restrictions and collect commissions on resales of residents' homes," I mean, it's reprehensible that that should happen, but it has been happening and this bill is going to address it. We have to take a look at that. They've got some concerns because it doesn't have everything in there.

I met on Sunday April 18 in the afternoon -- it was a nice sunny afternoon -- with some representatives from the Ontario Owned-Home Leased-Lot Federation, and they presented me with a wish list. There's the wish list. They presented that to me. We sat down, we talked about it, we made some revisions, and not everything is on that, and I recognize that we like to have everything on there. Maybe when we talk about hearing that the landlords -- "When are you going to let the landlords?"

Well, let's get this bill into committee and we can hear from the landlords, and we can hear from the federation, we can hear from the good folks from Sutton-By-The-Lake, we can hear from the folks at Wilmot Creek, we can hear from the folks at Sandy Cove. There are a lot of people out there who want to talk to us, and I think that we have to do that.

I guess the difference is, in the past, governments have said: "Oh, I'm sorry. Private members' bills go nowhere. Backbench members don't have a say here. If the government doesn't bring it forward, that's the way it happens."

Well, Mr Speaker, you're right, there are priorities that the government must take and it brings them forward. There's a lot of us members -- I see a lot of good members surrounding me here, the members from Huron, Windsor-Walkerville. There's a lot of members here who have this very concern and there's a lot of caucus government members that are going to make sure that this goes forward, that we get a chance to go out to public hearings and we make this legislation law, because it's important that we take a look at the needs.

I'm proud of the fact that I represent the people who are sitting out there in that clubhouse right now from Sutton-By-The-Lake, who haven't given me a chance to say, "Well, sorry, it's not going to happen," because they've been coming to me regularly and saying, "Look, we've got to do something. We've got some concerns, Mr O'Connor. We want you to deal with it. We want you to take this to the floor of the Legislature and talk about it," and that's what I'm here doing today, because I think it's important that we do that.

These residents have talked to me about maintenance problems that they've had, operational problems, and they feel that the establishment of a reserve fund might help solve some of this. We don't know whether this is going to be the perfect answer, and the way we're going to do this is by getting it out to committee.

We've got an opportunity here, as private members, during private members' business, to make a long-lasting change, a change that is going to affect a lot of people, and quite often they're seniors. They're on a fixed income. Some of their pensions haven't gone up for a long time, and we're going to make something that's going to affect them.

I think it's time that we all stand in our place, support Mr Wessenger in this bill, because it's important not only for the folks in my riding but these communities right across the province because they're -- I hope the opposition are going to support us because they're in your ridings too.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I hope this does make it to committee.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Are you going to support us?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I really do hope it does make it to committee, because then an opportunity will be had, an opportunity that all these people -- these people have come down at their own time -- can just see how truly committed this government is to ensuring this piece of legislation pass. Because you know full well your standing there and lecturing and posturing with the rhetoric doesn't serve one simple conclusion.

The simple conclusion is: Will this piece of legislation pass that's apparently going to help service these poor people who are in a very difficult situation? I hope so, because once and for all we can put it to rest, because you know, Mr Speaker, as we know, as they know -- and maybe these people don't -- that if this were a priority with this government, it would be on the orders of the day, put forward by the cabinet and supported by your caucus.

No, it has not. Why is it not? Because they want to stand here, like Mr Mills, like Mr O'Connor, and offer empty promises, simple rhetoric with no commitment for cheap vote-getting ability.

I hope this passes so we can get it to committee and the committee can take it up and we can see how purely flawed in legislative and legalese this is. We can get these people in to make deputations and then I want to be there the day when you have to explain to these people that it has fallen off the legislative table because your government doesn't support it, because it's flawed. I want to hear your rhetoric and promises and petitions on that day when that comes around.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to support it. You know why I'm going to support it? I don't want to leave these people left alone. I'm supporting it because I want to bring this to the front burner and I want to put you people on the spot and I want these people to know when they're being led down the garden path for votes. That's where you're being led, down the garden path for votes. They may not know it now, but they will certainly know it in some number of weeks when this hits committee and you stand up and make all the public apologies because your word isn't worth salt.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Huron, please.

Mr Wessenger, you have two minutes.

Mr Wessenger: I want to be there too when this law becomes finally legislation. I'd just like to say that I know there's a commitment from my caucus colleagues to do everything in our power to ensure that this legislation does become law. I believe that, with the support of my caucus, we can bring it to committee, we can ensure it goes to third reading and we can ensure it becomes enacted.

Another thing I'd like to say: I realize this isn't perfect. I didn't have the benefit of the Ministry of Housing, I didn't have the benefit of the Attorney General's ministry, I didn't have the benefit of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in drafting this bill. I had to do it the best I could as a lawyer, working with legislative counsel, who did yeoman service in helping me bring this bill forward.

I realize there will be amendments, but that's the whole purpose of hearings, that's the whole purpose of committee hearings, to get that input to make sure that we do have better legislation. I've taken a lot of legislation through, even that drafted by government, and I know often there are many amendments there because they're flawed. This is not the final form, but it's a good beginning, a good framework to start on.

The other thing is that I'd just like to refer to a couple of criticisms from the member for Lawrence because I think -- and I can understand why he made the comments; it's a very technical area -- first of all he said the reserve fund was problematic. I agree it's a difficult area, and one of the provisions I put in the bill was to provide for alternative security to a reserve fund, because I realize those difficulties.

The other misunderstanding that several members seem to have is that this bill prohibits conversion to condominiums or to cooperatives. Again, I provided in the bill that the Rental Housing Protection Act does not apply in prescribed circumstances where there is a conversion to a condominium or a cooperative, and the idea is to ensure that where residents want that conversion, it will occur.

So I ask all members, in view of these comments, to support this legislation. Let's get it to committee and let's get it enacted.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The time for the first ballot item has expired.

1100

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr Callahan moved private member's notice of motion number 13:

That, in the opinion of this House,

Since the government of Ontario intends to pass Bill 90, An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites; and

Since the effect of this act will be to effectively rezone residential properties and increase density without the protection of the planning process which allows public participation and decision-making by municipal officials who are accountable to the public; and

Since the municipality of the city of Brampton and many other municipalities have already incorporated within their official plans a commitment to the creation of 25% affordable housing pursuant to the policy of the former Liberal government; and

Since the Liberal Party recognizes in these difficult economic times that with the high cost of housing, alternative accommodation of an affordable nature is required, as evidenced by the former Liberal government's direction for "granny flats" and specific levels of affordable housing; and

Since the action of this government in this act is to effectively bypass the local planning process with its public participation, and by edict, extract value from taxpayers by expropriating property without equitable compensation, contrary to every rule of equity; and

Since the Liberal Party supports dwelling units being allowed where zoning is consistent and such uses can be appropriately integrated with the host neighbourhood or in future developments where the integrity of the planning process is maintained and the public is aware of what zoning is in place;

Therefore Bill 90 should be withdrawn or amended by the government of Ontario to ensure the property rights of the citizens of Brampton and other Ontario communities are protected.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): It's interesting that the New Democratic Party government, in Bill 90, has simply tried to deal with an issue of search warrants and how to find out whether there are illegal basement apartments by bringing in a bill that in effect is going to rob people who have spent money on probably the largest investment in their lifetime by buying a home in a residential area where single-family dwellings are established.

That establishment and that zoning was brought about as a result of municipal officials and planning officials looking at it and deciding that that's what should be there, that that's the density that should be there, and in fact approving that, and they are accountable to the public; they're accountable every three years by terms of an election.

But that's not good enough for this government. In an effort to try to deal with the issue of illegal basement apartments, because they couldn't deal with it in any other fashion, they decided, "Well, we'll just legalize all of them retroactively." Let me tell you, that flies in the face totally of all planning principles that I've ever learned of. It flies in the face of the principles of democracy which I thought the New Democratic Party stood for. Number one, it takes away from home owners the benefit that they had paid for when they purchased their home. Number two, they had paid taxes on that basis for many, many years. Number three, they thought they were in an area where if the density was to be increased because of a change in the neighbourhood area, this would be done through a proper process where they would have the opportunity to have their say, where people would be able to make decisions in terms of an orderly planning process.

I don't think people understand, and I'm sure many of the members of the government don't understand, that that's how far-reaching this legislation is. If they do understand that, then I really am concerned, because it means that a party such as the New Democratic Party -- "democratic"party -- would allow for the elimination of these rights of people without any opportunity whatsoever to have a say.

I don't want the people watching this to get the picture wrong. As I said in the resolution, we are in fact in favour of affordable housing to people. But the city of Brampton and I'm sure the region of Peel took up the challenge of the former Liberal government to ensure that in their official plan there would be at least 25% of the housing listed there that would be in the range of affordable housing. We have done that.

We now find that the government of the day, the New Democratic Party government, is now trying to say to us through Bill 90: "In fact, it doesn't matter what's going on in these neighbourhoods, it doesn't matter that you live in a single-family neighbourhood, that's too bad. We are now going to legalize these basement apartments."

Basement apartments, if they are properly planned for, with all the safeguards that can be installed in terms of fire safety, health safety and so on, are great. But if they're done retroactively, as is the suggestion of this bill and the intent of this bill, then what you've done is you've not only taken a situation of a person's home and increased the density of it by law, contrary to all principles of equity, but you have in fact placed them in the potentiality of danger of fire and so on. I suggest that's not fair and has never been recognized in law as being fair.

It's an attempt by this government to do the usual thing and that usual thing is to try to take people's rights away, purportedly for the benefit of other people who need those rights, without thinking about it.

I urge the Minister of Housing, if she's watching this, that there is another approach. If you wish to have secondary accommodations, be it basement apartments or whatever, in order to protect those people and not allow them to be preyed on perhaps by landlords, the way to do it is to say, "All right, in this area, we propose that there should be basement apartments or multiple dwellings." Let the public have their say, let the zoning process take its place and let anyone who buys in that community know that this is a higher-density area. But don't try to foist it on to a community where this was not the case and where people did not anticipate that to happen.

If that's what's going to happen with Bill 90 being passed, then I suggest to you that the people of Ontario are not safe in any area. They're going to find that this government will impose, retroactively, unfair practices on people in terms of a whole host of things. I suggest to you that's not fair. I have had thousands of people in my community who have signed petitions that were done in cooperation with the municipality. The municipality is gravely concerned about this entire issue.

It's interesting that in response to one of the petitions that were filed, as is the case under the rules, the ministry responded and it responded in a document which was some six pages long. I want to refer you to just a few items in here which are clearly wrong. In paragraph 1, it says, "The apartments-in-houses legislation, Bill 90, alters the zoning authority traditionally available to municipalities through requiring that they permit second units in detached, semi-detached and row houses located in zones which permit residential use." That's right. That's precisely what I've been just saying.

They go on to say: "Such individuals and their municipal representatives have expressed the concern that Bill 90 will have a detrimental impact on the character of neighbourhoods which are now predominantly single family in character. However, research has suggested that existing neighbourhoods are unlikely to experience significant change as a result of Bill 90." I'd like to see that research. It's probably the first time they've done research on an issue, and I challenge that.

They also say they will not increase neighbourhood population. Well, that flies in the face of logic. If you're retroactively increasing the density of a single-family home, then you are in fact increasing the neighbourhood population.

They say it won't increase service usage, and then they put the word "significantly" after it, because they know that it's going to increase services. It's going to increase the number of people attending school, the number of people using the sewer system and the water system. In fact, they recognize that, because they eliminated from Bill 90 those homes that are on septic tanks. I say to the people of Ontario, if there's any possibility of Bill 90 passing, maybe what you should do is unhook your home from the sewer system and get on a septic tank, because that's the only way you're going to be able to rescue yourself.

1110

They also say that it doesn't result in a decline in neighbouring property values. Well, that may or may not be the case. If you can't see what's happening inside, then perhaps it doesn't impact on the neighbourhood values. But I would suggest that most realtors who are going around and selling homes are going to indicate that this is the case.

They say they've talked to 60 key stakeholders. I'd like to know who they were. They've also said they're placing the question of fire standards under the Ontario Building Code. Obviously, they recognize that there's going to be an increased fire hazard by this taking place.

They tell us that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario has been consulted as part of the process. They don't tell us what the result was of that consultation, and I would suggest that if these people find people whom I know about, they probably had a great deal to say about it and were objecting to it.

They do say under the first paragraph on page 3: "The Land Use Planning for Housing policy statement issued in 1989" -- that was the one done by the Liberal government -- "required municipalities to amend their official plans and zoning bylaws to allow apartments and houses in appropriate areas. The poor level of compliance...." Well, where's the proof of that? My community certainly complied with it, and I'm sure most communities throughout Ontario complied with it. They use that as a reason for allowing this to take place retroactively.

As I said, I think most good people in this province would agree that we have to have housing for everyone, but it shouldn't be at the expense of people who have already purchased their homes, believing that the density they were moving into, and paying the high price for that density, would remain what it was. In fact, what this government is attempting to do is simply to take that away, without any compensation whatsoever.

Municipalities themselves are obviously going to have increased demands on their services. School boards: Where is the assistance in the bill in terms of financial assistance to municipalities, or are the taxpayers of that municipality suddenly going to have to bear the burden of that additional cost, without any benefit from Queen's Park?

I suggest to you that, all in all, it really shocks me that a party that prides itself on being democratic would bring in a piece of legislation that is so machiavellian that it is going to impact on the citizens of my riding and certainly other ridings throughout this province. So I would ask all members to support this resolution and send a message to the government that Bill 90 is flawed in that respect and make certain that these changes are in fact taking place.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on this resolution that the member for Brampton South has brought to us today for our consideration and comment.

In the briefest of terms, this resolution reads as follows:

"That, in the opinion of this House, since the government of Ontario intends to pass Bill 90, An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites, and

"Since the effect of this act will be to effectively rezone residential properties and increase density without the protection of the planning process which allows public participation and decision-making by municipal officials who are accountable to the public," and therefore this bill "should be withdrawn or amended by the government of Ontario to ensure the property rights of the citizens of Brampton and other Ontario communities are protected."

Having said that, personally, I believe Bill 90 should not be amended; it should be withdrawn entirely. I'm opposed to Bill 90, An Act to amend the Planning Act and the Municipal Act with respect to Residential Units and Garden Suites for many of the same reasons that have been expressed so well to me by many municipalities in my riding of Simcoe East and other municipalities represented by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

The reasons include: It fails to provide adequate legal protection for home owners who need to regain possession of their accessory apartments. It fails to recognize that these apartments may not offer a reasonable quality of life for their occupants or be compatible with their surrounding neighbourhoods. It interferes with municipal zoning authority and negates official plans and decades of land use planning decisions. It fails to provide municipalities with licensing authority for accessory apartments -- now this is Bill 90 I'm talking about -- and it fails to consider how municipalities and school boards will pay for the services required by the residents of accessory apartments.

It also fails to consider whether sufficient infrastructure is in place to accommodate the residents of accessory apartments. By that, I'm saying there are many municipalities that have not got the infrastructure to service additional subdivisions they have wanted for years. Now we're saying you can put an apartment in every home in that municipality. I find that unacceptable. It contributes to the absentee landlord syndrome by failing to limit accessory apartments to owner-occupied homes.

These are just a few of the reasons local politicians have given me for their opposition to Bill 90.

On October 30, 1992, the president of AMO said the NDP government is using Bill 90 to rezone neighbourhoods across Ontario without community consultation. The AMO president noted that zoning is a municipal responsibility and that residents understand this and expect their local councillors to account for the zoning decisions that affect them and their neighbourhoods.

Under the Planning Act, 1983, municipalities are required to conduct public meetings on official plan and zoning bylaw amendments, but Bill 90 overrides these requirements and the existing bylaws which have included community consultation.

In conclusion, I support the portion of this resolution that calls for Bill 90 to be withdrawn. I cannot support the amendment of Bill 90 because it is so flawed that it defies any tinkering the NDP could attempt to undertake.

Bill 90 is not an appropriate mechanism to increase the supply of affordable housing. This legislation would impose a province-wide solution to a perceived Toronto problem, and that seems to be the direction this government is taking: What's good for Toronto, it feels, is good for the rest of Ontario. It's not necessarily so.

So this legislation is contrary to existing policy statements. It is inconsistent with the principles of good planning and opposite to the goals and objectives being advocated by the NDP government's own Sewell commission. Bill 90 is an unwarranted and an unwanted intrusion on local government authorities and it eliminates the option of choice for the local government.

I want to thank the member for Brampton South for bringing forward this resolution, because it shows just how flawed and undemocratic Bill 90 really is. This government is not allowing school boards to expand in the additions to schools in rural Ontario. They are not allowing for the septic systems to be put in. They want the school boards to be all brought together and put in where there are sewers and water.

I hear on the radio this morning that the people in the Brantford area or Welland area are wanting to put in a new school which is a mile from services and allow the septic system to prevail. Is this government's policy the same across the province as it is for one area or the other? Simcoe county board cannot get approval for additions because it's in the rural country.

Anyhow, I wanted to make that known because of the inconsistent policies of this administration, and Bill 90 is just one case in point. So I appreciate the member bringing this forward and allowing the discussion to take place, because Bill 90 is so flawed.

1120

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I'm very pleased to address this initiative of the government, which is apartments in houses across this province.

First of all, yes, I was part of the ministry which did meet with many people across this province approximately a year ago when the white paper was released. It comes to mind at this point I did meet in the city hall of North Bay with politicians and various community groups there, also in Oshawa and various other places. We talked to the local politicians, we talked to the planners, we talked to community groups, we talked to even real estate people about the aspects and the implications of what this would do.

I'd like to point out a little bit of history here. I believe it was concluded long ago, in agreement between many people in this Legislature, that for affordable housing, as many options as possible is what is needed and, secondly, that communities need to be inclusive: no more of this NIMBY syndrome.

We started discussing this maybe five or six years ago, and I remember the Liberal government back in 1988 putting out a paper and then confirming it in August 1989, a policy statement called Land Use Planning for Housing. The whole purpose of that statement was to provide those options for affordable housing and inclusion in all neighbourhoods of affordable housing.

I remember that much education has gone on since that time. Attitudes have changed. Under the Liberal government, even, the housing advocacy branch was out across this province talking to various people, including the municipal planning committees, and talking about creating access to permanent housing committees and housing help centres.

I hope my colleagues will excuse me when I do say that the Liberal government did provide these initiatives, which were excellent. I remember at a conference in Kitchener, called Developing the Will, Mr Sweeney spoke passionately and Chaviva Ho_ek, about the need for inclusiveness for affordable housing in all neighbourhoods across this province.

I'd like to turn to some very easy things to understand, and these are the reasons why apartments in houses make sense. I'd like to just list them off to you.

First of all, our construction industry is hurting. It's a key part of our economy. We want construction workers, plumbers, electricians back to work, as I'm sure all of us do.

Secondly, apartments in houses are an effective way of increasing the supply of affordable, lower-rental housing at no cost to the taxpayers. Let's have a hand from the opposition on that one.

Number three, this bill will also generate spinoffs in other industries such as the building materials industry, such as the appliance industry, when people upgrade and bring their apartments up to standard or else put in new ones.

I'd like to mention the creation of garden suites or granny flats, as they may be called. This might in fact help our economy by keeping these people in a much happier setting but also keeping them out of institutional care, which is of course very expensive.

Permitting apartments in houses will also help more people enter the home ownership market, and of course the real estate folks in this province are very pleased about that idea: They want the people to have the confidence to be able to get into home ownership. The builders can even now build in the basics of an apartment into the basement or the attic or wherever, so that when a person buys a new home, they can in fact rent out an apartment within it and therefore be able to afford the mortgage. It may help very many singles or young families.

It will also hopefully help those people who have empty nests; that is, their families have left, they have a larger house, they're seniors, maybe, and they need that extra income from an apartment so they can keep their house. We all know that taxes, all kinds of taxes, municipal taxes are rising and people need to be able to keep their houses.

Also, legalizing apartments will raise the assessed value of these homes and this in turn will mean more revenue for the municipality. We all know that these apartments in many cases are there and the municipality cannot assess them because they are not legal and therefore it cannot collect this extra amount.

The apartments in houses will also mean more efficient and economical use of municipal services. We know the benefits of intensification versus urban sprawl. All you have to do is ask the Sewell commission. People don't want to use up more farm land. We need to use the services that are already there, and in many of our cities, in the core of the cities there is empty space that can be intensified. We can use those schools; we can use that transit. We don't have to use more of our farm lands and certainly our children can thank us for preserving more farm land.

We want to create vibrant downtown communities. All across this province, we see the inner cores of towns or cities having less people, and the more people you have there, I would like to say, the better it is for those communities.

I also want to mention that upgrading of the standards will certainly help both the tenant and the landlord. We cannot do that unless these units are legalized, and it is very obvious that these units are in fact there.

I want to conclude by saying that this bill is to help individuals. It is not to infringe on property rights; it is to give people rights. Studies have shown that apartments in houses do not lead to a decline in the neighbourhood's property values; neither do group homes -- the same Liberal studies have shown from years ago -- and neither does non-profit housing. Certainly the Liberal government tried in the past to explain this to municipalities, way back in 1988 and 1989.

This bill is indeed about rights. It is about the right of everyone to inclusion. I ask the members opposite to think of the most vibrant neighbourhoods they know, whether it's in Toronto here or in their own home community. It's where people of all ages, all incomes, know each other, live with each other, care about each other. These are inclusive neighbourhoods, not exclusive neighbourhoods based on property rights.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): As usual, the members opposite talk in terms of inclusion that would give one the impression that in a perfect world we would all live in communes, where we know one another, where we eat with one another, where we play with one another, where we have this wonderful, wonderful fairy-tale-world atmosphere in our residential communities, where there are no problems. It's obvious to me, when I hear the members opposite speak --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, it's not my fault.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Mr Mahoney: It's obvious to me when I hear members opposite speak that many of them have never had to serve on a local municipal council to deal with some of the problems that occur in dealing first hand with the ratepayers. Otherwise, if they did serve on those councils, they have short memories: They have forgotten the problems that occur.

You see, the issue here that my good friend from Brampton North raises --

Interjection: South.

Mr Mahoney: South. Whatever; close enough.

The issue here is not whether housing intensification is a good idea. As the former speaker just mentioned, our government introduced a housing intensification policy. It's not whether or not basement apartments are a particularly good thing. My wife and I, some 24 years ago, set up our nuptial home in a basement apartment. It was wonderful. We didn't go out much in those days, mind you, but it was wonderful. There's nothing wrong with that if it's done appropriately and if it works within the community.

If you've ever had any experience -- let me tell you about a place called Talka Village, a residential community of townhouses where people in Mississauga, in Mississauga South, as a matter of fact, came in and bought up these individual units, chopped them up into 8 to 10 bedrooms and put people in there, single mothers and others who couldn't afford to find a place of their own, gouged them, charged them outrageous rents, created parking problems, comings and goings at all hours of the day and night and created serious problems that eroded the foundation of that community. That's not intensification. That's not that airy-fairy world of NDP dogma that would see everyone in a love-in in a community. That's not reality. That's not what our communities are all about.

1130

What my friend Mr Callahan's motion says is that this bill bypasses the municipalities' authority and indeed their responsibility to plan their community in conjunction with the people who live there. That's not NIMBY; that's fairness. A family comes in and invests its life savings and raises its kids in a community only to find out that a number of houses on the street are being turned into multiple-occupancy units. You can't limit it to a basement apartment. We have many examples where people have come in and literally subdivided houses into numerous different flats and turned them into boarding houses. I don't think any of us would want that to happen in our backyard without some ability to control the problems that occur.

I have some experience in these problems. Before I was elected to this august place I was a city councillor in Mississauga. I was also the president of Peel Non-Profit Housing Corp and a member of that board for nine years. I was proud of it then and I still am. I had to deal with the building, by Peel Non-Profit, of a group home for former psychiatric patients in the middle of a community called Sherwood Forest. Sherwood Forest, the name itself, might give you some idea of what that community is like. They are all very large, 3,000-square-foot-plus, single-family homes. You can imagine the outrage when this upstart city councillor who thinks he's going to Queen's Park comes to the community and says, "We're going to put a group home in here for former psychiatric patients." Let me tell you, there were 400 people at the meeting ready to lynch me and anybody else who even thought they were going to do such a thing.

We set up a committee of the community. We set up a steering committee. They met with the proponents. They toured another home in Brampton, as a matter of fact, to see how it worked within the community and they found out that their fears were unfounded. They found out that the people who would be moving into that particular establishment were, but for the grace of God, you and me. They found out that they were simply real people who needed help, who needed an ability to move back within the community, who were not quite ready to go home to the pressures of their particular home, and they needed an adjustment period.

Let me tell you, that was also three months before the provincial election, and going through that process and involving the steering committee and involving the residents, I even won the poll, for goodness' sake, because the people had an opportunity to have their input. The municipality had an opportunity to put forward its concerns. The residents in the community felt that democracy at least prevailed, and if at the end of the day they might have all said, "Well, we'd really rather not have this here," at least they understood what they were getting.

Just as a quick note, a corollary, to this, about one week after that home opened there was a suicide in the home. My phone rang like crazy with people saying, "I told you so." I pointed out to those people that within their own community in the past year there had been four suicides unreported in the media.

The point very simply is that these very real human problems exist in all our communities and we have to deal with them. I know the pain of having to go through that kind of process with a community. What Bill 90 does is it takes away that opportunity.

Members opposite say there's no cost to the taxpayer. There has been no analysis done about the impact on schools. There has been no analysis done of the impact on municipal services, be it sewer and water. There has been no analysis done on safety concerns from the fire department's point of view. There is no option for the municipality to enter and inspect, save and except under the fire act, and they don't want to go around like a jackboot group of people. Even though I know this government likes to operate that way, they don't want to go around like that. They would rather have some tools --

The Deputy Speaker: I find this insulting, I honestly do. Your reference to "jackboot," I don't like that. I find it offensive, and just don't use it.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, with respect, sir, I find that offensive. I don't know where it reads in the act or in any piece of legislation in this Legislature -- I'm not calling anyone a liar. If I choose to use a description such as "jackboot," I frankly find it offensive that you would say that.

The Deputy Speaker: I just ask you to be careful with your language.

Mr Mahoney: I find this government acts in that way both in tone and in actions, and Bill 90 takes away from the municipalities the opportunity to have a fair process in place to deal with the concerns and the very legitimate concerns of their constituents.

There will be costs. The municipalities are asking for the authority to license. They're asking for the authority to regulate. They're not saying no to intensification of housing. They're not saying no to basement apartments. They sure as heck are not saying no to non-profit if it's done properly. But they are saying this government has no right to shove regulatory powers down their throat denuding them of their democratic responsibility to work with their community, to make housing intensification work.

Mr Speaker, I'm going to wrap up my comments by telling you, sir, that I'm extremely disappointed at the interruptions that occurred from the Chair.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I would hope that through this debate the government would reconsider Bill 90 and consider withdrawing it or changing it.

I must say that I suspect, again, in the first instance that Bill 90 was brought forward at a time when there was a certain need. It was brought forward, perhaps, with good intentions. It was brought forward at a time when the vacancy rate here in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, was about 0%, but those times have changed. The vacancy rate today, as we speak, is approaching 2.5%.

I was in Thorold last week and I was told that in the Niagara area the vacancy rate is closer to 7%. I'm told that the vacancy rate in the city of London approaches 5%. Basically, the conditions that we faced back when this bill was brought forward have changed considerably. I think it should be revisited.

I'm interested in that I've heard that there has been consultation. I've heard that the stakeholders have been approached and that there's agreement with regard to the terms of Bill 90. I'd love to know where that agreement comes from, because I have attended a number of meetings through the years on this very topic and recently over the past year or so when it became the intent of the government to introduce Bill 90. I've talked to a number of the mayors and I've been in meetings where many of the mayors of many of the municipalities, particularly from southern Ontario, were in attendance. I can say that almost without exception there is total opposition to Bill 90; almost without exception.

The municipalities are expressing many concerns. AMO itself, as a representative of the municipalities, is expressing these concerns. Let's not kid ourselves that everybody's in agreement with Bill 90. Let's not kid ourselves that there's municipal support out there for it. Perhaps this is an agenda of the government. Perhaps the government has some philosophical approach to housing. But this is not the support of the municipalities, and the problems that they put forward involve the zoning process. That's been alluded to here today.

When people buy their house, it's the biggest single investment that most people will make in their life. They will carefully choose the house. They will choose it for the number of bedrooms, they will choose it for the location, they will choose it for the price and, in terms of the location, they note what is next door, what's in the community. Are they buying next to a rooming house? Are they buying next to an apartment building? Are they buying next to a business? What kind of neighbourhood are they buying into? They carefully make that choice in the full knowledge that their neighbourhood will not change unless they are fully consulted, and if there is to be a change in their neighbourhood, it's not done unilaterally. At least, this is what they thought. They had every reason to believe that the planning process that's in place in the province of Ontario would give them the right to speak to any change in zoning in their neighbourhood, that if any changes were to be made they would be invited to a meeting and they would have the right to speak. That's how they bought.

1140

What's being proposed here is that every house, each and every house right throughout the province of Ontario, will be changed and will now become a duplex, that in fact an extra unit will be allowed. Well, I suggest to you, Mr Speaker, that the people will not support that. They will support that in certain instances, if you look at it neighbourhood by neighbourhood. But as a broad brush across the province of Ontario, this is very draconian and will not have the support of the municipalities or the people of Ontario.

The municipalities are put in a bind, as has been alluded to earlier, because there will be more people involved, there will be more pressure on services: recreation services, fire services, library, health, the infrastructure -- the roads, the sewers, the water. Where does the money come from to pay for that? The municipalities, through this budget, are already being cut by hundreds of millions of dollars, and yet they're being asked to pick up funding for extra services for more people. We're being told by the member from Niagara Falls that the assessment will go up on these properties. We don't know that for sure. In fact, the municipalities will have to ante up more money to pay for more services, when they're opposed to this situation.

One of the main problems has to do with the right of entry. Today, in terms of inspecting properties that are considered to be illegal, there's a grave problem in terms of the right of entry. Residents in a municipality, and I think the member from Mississauga West alluded to that, will complain to their local councillors because they view that in their neighbourhood there's an abuse of the zoning, that there are too many people or too many units in a certain house, that there's poor maintenance of the property, that there's junk all over the place, cars, noise, any number of complaints that will arise today. The local municipalities have no right of entry into a property to investigate to see if there's a problem.

Now, as the problem works its way through the system and if ultimately it gets to court, the court will require evidence that there is a violation today. The municipalities cannot get that evidence because they cannot get inside. The court requires a witness; the municipalities cannot get a witness. That hasn't changed with Bill 90; the municipalities are in the same boat. But actually they're in a worse situation because Bill 90 will encourage more speculation, will encourage absentee landlords, landlords to purchase a property, to put tenants in the building, but without giving it the proper maintenance. The municipalities will not have the authority to get in, and they will have more and more complaints after Bill 90 is put forward.

People complain about parking problems. I guess some of the honourable members from the other side who are supporting Bill 90 perhaps represent communities with broad frontages, where there's lots of room for parking. I can tell you, in many of the urban centres there is simply no room for parking and today there is a parking shortage. After Bill 90 goes through, with more people in a smaller area, the parking problems will be unimaginable. Municipalities are raising these points. Municipalities are bringing these points forward, and yet they're not being listened to.

We're being told by the member from Niagara Falls that this will create a vibrant downtown, if we allow basement apartments. Basement apartments will now be the new secret to a vibrant downtown. Well, I can tell you, from the complaints that I've had over the years at the municipal level, people would think that this will do anything but create a vibrancy. This will create all sorts of problems for the municipalities; this will bring down the level of housing.

What the municipalities are saying is, let them speak to the province, let them have input into this, and if there's a working relationship between the province of Ontario and the municipalities, then we can solve the housing problem. But don't legislate something like this down on top of them that they oppose.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): As has been mentioned earlier, the previous government promoted a policy of intensification that would encourage apartments in houses. I say "encourage" because there was no force given to ensure that apartments in houses could be implemented. There are over 100,000 illegal apartments in houses in Ontario already, with half of them outside of Toronto in other types of communities such as London, Brampton and Thunder Bay.

I think Bill 90 and apartments in houses will hold benefits for many different groups. For seniors, the rental income from an apartment in a house can mean the difference between staying in their homes or being forced to move either into a long-term care facility or some other type of facility. The rental income from an apartment in a house could also be a deciding factor for a young couple in terms of whether they'll be able to afford to purchase a new home.

I think that taxpayers in general will stand to benefit from Bill 90. It will save taxpayers money by allowing for better, more efficient use of municipal services. When apartments can be created legally, tenants can help offset decreasing populations in these neighbourhoods and this make services like public transit and policing more cost-effective.

The point I really want to emphasize is that Bill 90 is neither an unconditional amnesty for existing illegal apartments in houses nor an infringement on property rights. On the contrary, it strengthens the property rights of people who want to make better use of their homes and the rights of people to live where they choose, as long as municipal standards are met.

It doesn't mean all apartments in houses that exist now or that are out there now are going to be legal afterwards. They may not be because they may not be meeting those municipal standards. As part of Bill 90, we are giving more authority to bylaw officers to enforce and to enter into to do inspections regarding enforcement of municipal bylaws. So I think the checks and balances have been presented in Bill 90 very effectively.

I also know that many people, and particularly I know in some communities, are concerned about students in university-college towns, but I do know that this will provide a very strong source of affordable and safe housing to these people, to students who have limited incomes as well. So I would certainly hope that people will continue to support the initiative of Bill 90.

The government has consulted and received input. I know my own county planning department in Oxford provided input about concerns regarding rural areas. The ministry has responded to concerns about having it on private septic systems and, of course, they have been excluded from the bill. So I would encourage people to vote against this resolution and support Bill 90.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I am rising to speak in favour of the resolution, an initiative by Mr Callahan, because I believe that it represents the best interests of the majority of people in the province of Ontario. There isn't anybody in this House who doesn't want to see an adequate supply of housing provided for everyone.

Most communities have tried hard, particularly in recent years, where there has been a crunch in housing, to provide that kind of housing, particularly in new subdivisions where they've provided the kind of mix, that people know when they move into a neighbourhood that it is going to be multifamily, that there may be some commercial, there may be some industrial. In other words, when they move in, they're fully aware of the circumstances facing that neighbourhood.

It has been pointed out, I think appropriately, that the single largest expenditure that a person is likely to make in a lifetime is the purchase of a home, if a person has chosen to do so. And people often do it based on a lot of information that they gather together to determine where they would like to live and under what circumstances.

There are some people who like to spend a lot of money on a car and they may get a car that's worth $50,000 or $60,000 and it has all the toys on it. Somebody else may like entertainment and spend a lot of money on entertainment because that enhances their quality of life. Others have a cottage or something else that they wish to make their expenditure on.

1150

They're all important and perhaps they don't feel that the expenditure on the home is of great significance. But I do believe that people, when they move into a neighbourhood -- and I sat on a municipal council for seven and a half years and I know the great pressure that's there -- make that choice. The house sometimes costs more money as a result of the fact that they have chosen to live in what is classified as single-family neighbourhoods where there is an exclusion of multiple-family dwellings, where there's an exclusion of commercial or industrial. They pay a premium for that. I think they feel betrayed when imposed upon them is a significant change to that neighbourhood, and they feel particularly put upon when that is imposed from outside, that is, from the provincial level.

There are certain items that are under the jurisdiction of local government, and justifiably so. One of them is the detailed planning of neighbourhoods. The governments of Ontario, the previous government and this government, have both indicated clearly to municipalities that they wish to see approximately 25% of the new housing that's brought on stream to be made what we call affordable housing.

We've been trying to make it available for people who, in the past, haven't had that opportunity. I think there's a pretty good support for that, even among the municipalities which were initially reticent. But what there is not support for is an imposition by the provincial government of these kinds of rules on existing neighbourhoods.

We live in a society which is dominated by the individual automobile. Just to see the traffic that exists on the street when this is allowed, the number of cars that are parked on the street, the additional services that are required in terms of sewer and water, recreation and the multiplicity of services that local municipalities provide, the local municipality feels set upon by the government legislation, even though there has been consultation and a white paper put out. The local individuals feel, I think, that they are being betrayed by some level of government, by somebody out there who has changed the rules after they have made their purchases.

I think it boils down to -- and this is what the member is trying to get at -- two issues: the individual and the rights of that individual to live in a neighbourhood that the individual has chosen and, second, the issue of the local municipality and its jurisdiction. Provincial governments over the years -- and certainly this government has been doing so -- have unloaded some of the responsibilities to local municipalities. They complained to the Conservatives when they were in power, they complained to the Liberals when we were in power and they complain to the NDP today. They're almost at the end of their rope in terms of provincial governments putting new responsibilities on local municipalities and of course interfering within the sole jurisdiction of those municipalities.

There are times when the province has to set out broad guidelines. I think most people would accept that. I certainly accept it. I've seen it in terms of agricultural land and the province making its declarations, and there are a number of other declarations of provincial interest that are applied either to specific neighbourhoods or to policies as a whole. I support the province trying to reach those particular goals.

Where I think the problem exists is when the province tries to get into the detailed responsibilities of the local municipality. I would hope there would be some considerable support for the member for Brampton. He hasn't called for the withdrawal of the bill, as many people, I think, probably would. I think he's realistic enough to see that the government is going to proceed with its bill. He has offered, I think, a reasonable and moderate alternative for the government to consider. I hope that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and members on all sides of the House will see fit to support this particular initiative. I commend the member for Brampton, Mr Callahan, for doing so.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to thank the member for bringing up these important issues, but also to remind him of the very fact that the initiatives that he's talking about, brought forward by the previous Liberal government, of which he was a part, did experience some difficulties.

As the member from Brampton no doubt knows, the Liberal government supported apartments in houses. In fact they asked municipalities to plan for those apartments. They included zoning to allow apartments in houses as a requirement under their land use planning for housing policy statement.

Specifically, in 1989 there was a requirement that municipalities amend their official plans to designate areas where apartments in houses would be permitted. Several municipalities responded positively, but unfortunately the overall response was very disappointing.

Out of 100 priority area municipalities, 60 have adopted the official plan policies. The Ministry of Housing looked at 32 of those plans to see how well they complied and only 17 -- 17 out of 100 -- contained provisions that established areas of specific criteria for the creation of apartments in houses, and most of those 17 plans don't fully comply with the Liberals' housing policy statement.

My friend would have us go back to a Liberal status that didn't work. It wasn't effective. Standards like those mean fewer potential apartments in houses and, in some cases, also mean that apartments are actually excluded in neighbourhoods where they have been theoretically permitted.

I have to ask, why is the housing policy statement of the previous government being resurrected when it didn't do what it was set out to do? What did it accomplish for the 100,000 households with little or no rights? Obviously not very much. That's one of the reasons this government has moved ahead with Bill 90. We don't want to say: "We think apartments in houses are a good idea. Why don't you people go and do something about it?"

That time has come and it has gone and now we have to produce some results about affordable housing, results in regard to property owners having rights about their own property, results about safety and security. We have to act to ensure that this housing, which already exists, meets reasonable standards of health and safety and that the municipalities have the power to enforce those standards.

Under this legislation, municipalities will retain a high degree of control over the physical character of their neighbourhoods, including aspects such as front-yard setbacks, building heights, densities, driveway widths.

My friend from Mississauga West talks about some homes that are overcrowded with substandard accommodation. That's because of the present legislation, not what we're proposing. We're trying to improve that situation. We're trying to rectify the very things that my friend from Mississauga West spoke of.

My friend from Don Mills represents a community which has one of the highest levels of density in all of Ontario. In fact, as he well knows, that area he represents has a high proportion, a high density of number of units per acre, units that are inhabited by very small numbers of families, very small family sizes. Legislation will strengthen municipal enforcement, and far from imposing additional burdens on municipal services, apartments in houses should mean more full use of existing services, therefore services that are more cost-effective.

Studies have shown that both units in a converted house, as in Don Mills, tend to be occupied by smaller-than-average households, so it's unlikely that the total household in a converted house will be substantially bigger than the household in an unconverted house.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Brampton South, you have two minutes.

Mr Callahan: It's become more and more obvious to me that the members of the government who have spoken on this motion don't understand it. I must say that's frightening, because they in fact are the people who bring forward legislation and they don't know what it's about.

What I'm talking about is the taking of value, in other words, the retroactive legalization of existing basement apartments. I'm not talking about intensification.

I support fully the intensification process the Liberal government brought in. But I do not believe that you go into somebody's house -- this is the equivalent analogy -- and you say: "The state now owns your house. We're taking it. We're not giving you any compensation whatsoever for it." In fact, that's what you're doing.

I have no objection if the municipality wants to establish an area for residential apartments. I think that's great. I think what that does is create further housing for people who need it. What I'm saying to you is, don't try through legislation to steal from the people of Ontario who have invested their good, hard-earned money in buying a house after the fact, and that's what you people keep doing.

The people of Ontario have to be very frightened by the fact that anything they've decided today and applied their mind to it or purchased or whatever, the government, the NDP government, can take it away like that. "We'll just legislate it retroactively."

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): That's not true.

Mr Callahan: Well, that's precisely what you're doing. You are taking away from these people value and you're giving them nothing in return. You have allowed municipalities to collect taxes on the basis of a single-family residence for ages, or since the building was built, and yet what you're doing now, in one fell swoop by Bill 90, is you're in fact taking away that value from these people and you're not giving them one cent for it. It's contrary to all the principles of equity and justice.

I urge you to support this motion.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

LAND LEASE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TERRAINS À BAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 13 standing in the name of Mr Wessenger. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Wessenger has moved second reading of Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): Mr Speaker, I would request that it be referred to the standing committee on general government.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on general government? Agreed.

A majority of the House being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill will stand referred to the standing committee on general government.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 14 standing in the name of Mr Callahan. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Callahan moves resolution number 14. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1203 to 1208.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seats.

Mr Callahan has moved private member's notice of motion number 13. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Curling, Eddy, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Kwinter, Marland, Miclash, Poirier, Stockwell, Villeneuve.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Owens, Sutherland, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wiseman, Wood.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 13; the nays are 29. I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Tragedy has struck St Catharines and the Niagara Peninsula once again, this time in the form of a most unfortunate workplace accident on the Garden City Skyway.

On a daily basis, thousands of men and women in our province face potential danger on the job, particularly those in precarious construction and maintenance occupations. To the families and friends of Douglas Shand, Conrad Stenzel, David McKinley and Gordon Thomas, the hearts of all members of this assembly go out.

The investigation of this tragic accident will take place, as it must. If only its results could bring back to life those who have perished, we would all be grateful; but unfortunately they cannot.

The investigation by the Ministry of Labour will serve to explain the reason for the accident and the loss of lives. It will, hopefully, provide clues as to how such a tragedy can be avoided for those who continue to toil in the workplaces across Ontario.

The effort to increase safety in the workplace must continue and must expand to prevent a repetition of the loss of precious life.

To those who participated in the rescue of the others, whose lives, as well, were in jeopardy, we are all thankful. Their assistance has saved the lives of others whose families and other loved ones are most grateful.

ALMA PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): It gives me great pleasure to inform members of this House that Alma Public School in Wellington County has been recognized as an emerald school by the Society, Environment and Energy Development Studies Foundation for the school's outstanding work on environmental projects.

On March 3, Alma Public School became the first school in Ontario and the third in Canada to achieve jade status in the Seeds program by completing 250 environmental projects. By May, the students had com-pleted 500 projects, to rank as the first school in Ontario and the third in Canada to achieve emerald status.

I thank principal John Wilson and former principal Ian Sanders for deciding to have Alma Public School participate in the program. Gord Black, the teacher adviser of the school's environmental club, was a driving force and a source of inspiration to his students. I extend my hearty congratulations and thanks for his fine work.

Of course, the students and staff deserve recognition for all their enthusiasm and hard work in their efforts to improve the environment and promote environmental awareness. Students from kindergarten through grade 6 have worked diligently since first becoming involved in the program.

Among many worthwhile projects, the school has built 150 bird houses to establish a bluebird trail, planted a wildlife garden, started a blue box recycling and composting program, established a shelter belt/wildlife habitat on the school grounds and promoted environmental awareness through speeches and presentations on endangered species and environmental issues. Students also planted 3,000 trees off the school grounds as a grades 4, 5 and 6 tree-planting project.

Bravo, Alma Public School. Your work on behalf of the environment is an inspiration to all of us.

BEAMSVILLE STRAWBERRY FESTIVAL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I rise today to tell the House of a very exciting and delicious event that will take place in my riding next Saturday, June 19: the Beamsville Strawberry Festival.

Good weather or bad, the streets of Beamsville will come alive as people of Niagara celebrate another fine crop of bright red, sweet and juicy strawberries. Fresh-picked strawberries, strawberry shortcakes and sundaes will be the order of the day, as well as a variety of other foods, including hamburgers and hot dogs.

This year's entertainment will include a bike rodeo, a pet contest, a dog obedience demonstration and performances by various local musical groups, including the renowned Lincoln concert band.

Hay and pony rides for children, clowns and a ventriloquist will also entertain during the 17th annual festival. For aspiring Blue Jays and Expos, there will be a little league baseball tournament.

I'm sure this year's festival will bring together the entire community of Lincoln and it will attract visitors from other parts of the Niagara Peninsula, Metro Toronto and the United States.

I would like to congratulate the organizers of the Beamsville Strawberry Festival for coming up with a unique way of promoting another top-quality agricultural product.

Mr Speaker, if you're listening there, I urge members of the House to legislate a day of sunshine for next weekend's Beamsville Strawberry Festival.

POINTS SOULEVÉS PAR LA POPULATION FRANCOPHONE

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Dans son dernier budget, le gouvernement NPD a coupé les fonds à l'Office des affaires francophones de 807 000 $, c'est-à-dire de 20 %. Comme vous le savez, nous sommes aussi en faveur de compressions, mais une aussi forte coupure est, à mon avis, une autre preuve de l'indifférence du gouvernement face à tout ce qui concerne les francophones de l'Ontario.

J'ai aussi appris que les deux ministres s'étaient trouvé une bonne raison de ne pas assister au congrès de l'ACFO en fin de semaine dernière.

Je voudrais dire au gouvernement que les francophones de l'Ontario ne sont pas des dupes. Ils savent que le gouvernement s'est encore trouvé une raison de retarder tout progrès dans le dossier des collèges. Il ne faut pas s'étonner que les Franco-Ontariens et les Franco-Ontariennes aient totalement perdu confiance en ce gouvernement.

Le lendemain des compressions budgétaires, je participais au petit déjeuner postbudgétaire libéral. Si je me fie aux propos dans cette réunion et ailleurs, la population franco-ontarienne est furieuse contre ce gouvernement. On a beaucoup parlé de l'incompétence du gouvernement, des promesses non tenues, notamment dans le domaine de l'éducation, et de la situation difficile des aînés francophones.

Lisez les comptes rendus du congrès de l'ACFO de la fin de semaine dernière, c'est la même chose. Il y a encore un fort sentiment de colère et de crainte qui se dégage. Beaucoup de francophones se demandent jusqu'où le gouvernement est capable de se rendre, et ils ont très peur.

RACE RELATIONS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): It is time for all of us in this House to end the silence and let the racist Heritage Front know that we have heard their views and that we reject them completely. It is time to stop the spreading of hate messages.

In Kitchener-Waterloo, the white supremacists are creating a climate of fear and intimidation as they boldly wander the downtown streets, harass local merchants, hurl racial slurs, threaten violence and death, and frighten people just by being there. They are aiming their message of hatred, terror and violence at our young people, hoping to attract those who are disaffected, confused and rebellious. In doing so, they have boldly sent recruiting literature to the schools in the region of Waterloo, as well as setting up a phone line.

The people in my community are angry and concerned and they are going to get actively involved in eliminating the growing intolerance. Although freedom of speech is a right to be defended fiercely, it cannot be extended to cover the attempts by these white supremacists to spread their message. Their message of hatred, terror and violence has a long and tragic history, and it must be opposed with all the rigour of the law that our society can muster.

I encourage this government, I encourage each member of this House, to show leadership and act now to stop the spread of violence, hatred and intolerance.

ANCASTER BICENTENNIAL

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): The year 1993 marks the bicentennial of the town of Ancaster.

Over 200 years ago, Messrs James Wilson and Richard Beasley built a mill on the Ancaster Creek and a thriving community began to grow. Known as Wilson's Mills, it included a blacksmith, a cooper, a tavern for refreshment and a boardinghouse for transient workers. This formed the nucleus of the new village.

It was in 1793 that John Graves Simcoe surveyed and confirmed that district number 8 was to become the township of Ancaster. By 1800, it was the third most important settlement in Upper Canada. Owing to abundant water power, industry came and several factories made a variety of commodities: carriages, farm implements and lumber mills. The healthy air brought many early doctors and their patients to recover from the unhealthy area below the mountain. Some of these new arrivals brought education, wealth and an infusion of new ideas to the area.

During the War of 1812, Ancaster was an important military town because the Governor's Road was a direct link with the new settlements to the west.

By the 1860s, agriculture was still of prime importance and farms flourished. Scottish stonemasons and Irish carpenters brought their skills to Ancaster, and the old town hall, built in 1872, is a testament to their artistic workmanship.

Today, Ancaster stands majestically on top of the escarpment, overlooking the city of Hamilton, boasting a perfect blend of elegant estates of yesteryear and beautifully designed homes of the 1990s.

Happy 200th birthday, Ancaster.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The NDP government is once again abandoning the women of this province.

This week, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations attempted to have Wendy Priesnitz appointed vice-chair of the Ontario Film Review Board.

Wendy Priesnitz recently was the centre of controversy when she tried to weaken OFRB guidelines protecting women against violence, degradation and humiliation. It is reprehensible that the minister would consider promoting Ms Priesnitz to vice-chair of the board when this controversy has still not been resolved. Several groups, including the Coalition for the Safety of Our Daughters, have strongly opposed Ms Priesnitz's appointment.

The ministry has misled us by stating that a vacancy exists on the OFRB. In fact, the board currently has five vice-chairs and has never operated with more than that number.

We are concerned that Ms Priesnitz lacks the experience to take a leadership role on the board. In fact, the majority of her one-year term on the board was spent on personal business in Romania, leaving her with only a few scant months of experience.

The minister consistently claims in this House that she must remain independent of the OFRB, yet the minister's office personally spent several hours coaching Ms Priesnitz prior to her scheduled appearance before the standing committee on government agencies. It's obvious that the minister is aware of the difficulties in getting Ms Priesnitz's appointment ratified and is doing her best to smooth the way.

Ms Priesnitz failed to appear before the committee this morning when her appointment was to have been reviewed. Let's hope the minister has second thoughts about this ill-advised appointment.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I direct this statement to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister recently announced that his government will be shifting the total cost of reforestation on to the private sector. The forest industry will be assuming the cost of a program that cost $140 million in 1991.

In this year's budget, this sector was hit with a $25-million tax hit through the increased stumpage fees and a new corporate minimum tax. Ontario's forest industry is taking so many tax bites from this government that it is becoming impossible to do business in this province.

Marie Rauter, president of the Ontario Forest Industries Association, has provided me with the following quotation:

"We are supportive of negotiating a new contract for reforestation, but we need to know what is negotiable. We need the assurance that we will have harvest rights to the resources we grow."

As the Minister of Natural Resources negotiates this reforestation policy, I urge him to take heed of the industry's message. I ask the minister to make reforestation an investment for industry and not just another tax grab.

STANISLAVA MARKOVICH

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): Mr Speaker, June, as you know, is Seniors' Month, and we are for ever grateful and indeed fortunate to be among people who love and care for their neighbours and their friends.

Mr Speaker, you greeted, as I did, the recipients of the 1993 Senior Achievement Award to Queen's Park just last week and no doubt were equally impressed with the calibre of seniors we have in the province of Ontario.

There were well over 400 nominations submitted to government, highlighting the involvement of all nominees, and 19 were chosen, but they are all to be commended for their work and their generosity.

Windsor has many such individuals, but Stanislava Markovich of Pellissier Street is remarkable. After spending an hour speaking with her, I can truly appreciate this award bestowed upon her.

Let me give some highlights on the caring of Mrs Markovich. Twenty-five years ago, the dream of the Serbian Heritage Women's Society was to create the first Serbian Heritage Museum in North America. In 1987, the dream was realized, and ever since, Stanislava Markovich, a founding member of that group, has devoted her entire retirement to the voluntary, full-time operation of that museum.

Mrs Markovich is a member of the Windsor Media Council, the Circle of Serbian Sisters, the Windsor Symphony and a retired librarians' group. She uses her contacts with these groups and others to promote the activities of the museum in preserving Serbian history and culture.

This is our way of showing respect and thanks to the seniors in Ontario for their love and respect of this province.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): In March of this year, my government announced the details of a plan to control the provincial deficit. Our projections indicated that if we did not act, the provincial deficit would rise out of control. By 1996, interest payments on the debt to creditors could constitute the Ontario government's single biggest expenditure program, bigger than spending on hospitals or on education. The reality is that interest payments would soon cut into our budgets for investments in jobs and in essential services such as health and education.

The plan the government announced in March will hold the deficit for this year at approximately $9.2 billion. It will also save approximately $5 billion in interest payments over the next three years.

The plan we proposed to achieve this saving involves three components. The objective was that all sectors of society should contribute to dealing with our common problem and that those who earn the most should contribute the most.

First, the government looked to its own expenditures and cut $4 billion from various programs and ministries. The second component of the plan was contained in the budget, which introduced tax increases and other revenue measures totalling about $2 billion. To achieve the remaining $2 billion, the government invited employers and unions in the public sector to negotiate a new social contract. The objective was to enable representatives of the province's 950,000 broader public sector workers to discuss and negotiate ways of making a broad range of public services more efficient and more affordable for the taxpayers of Ontario.

Over a period of eight weeks, the representatives of public sector unions, employers and the government made some progress, but the talks broke down last Thursday night when the unions walked out.

The framework agreement that was tabled by the government towards the end of the negotiations included, among other things:

-- Generous provisions for job security, including an assurance that every worker affected by the abolition of a position would have a priority for another job with the same public sector employer, or with employers in the same industry, or within the same region.

-- For those affected by layoffs, we proposed a job security fund of $300 million to top up their UIC benefits to 95% of take-home pay for a year, or to be used to extend notice periods and allow time for retraining.

-- Employees making less than $30,000 would be exempt from measures that affect compensation.

-- The most significant savings would be realized through a system of unpaid leaves of absence, administered in such a way as to protect overall service delivery and to accommodate the preferences of individual workers.

These and other components of the social contract framework agreement constitute the basis for the plan the government will implement to achieve its $2-billion target. The basic principle of our approach remains the same: to reduce the cost of services while preserving jobs and services.

The government will introduce legislation in the Legislature on Monday to enable implementation of the key elements of the framework agreement negotiated at the social contract table, including: a job security fund; redeployment, training and adjustment assistance for employees subject to layoffs; compensation savings; efficiency in productivity savings; a low-income cutoff, and no effect on pay equity provisions.

The process laid out in the legislation will proceed as follows:

The reduction in transfer payments will begin in July.

Participants at previous social contract sectoral table negotiations will be encouraged to return to sector-by-sector negotiations. These are province-wide public service unions and associations representing hospitals, municipalities and other groups of employers. Many have already indicated their willingness to resume sectoral negotiations and their strong preference for an approach that respects the diversity of the public sector.

They will be asked to meet the same sectoral targets that had been set at the social contract table. The purpose of the negotiations will be for each sector to arrive at the best solution to achieving its target, while preserving as many jobs and services as possible.

Local parties, including individual municipalities, hospitals, and their employees, will also be permitted to negotiate local bilateral agreements within the same general principles as applied in the sectoral negotiations. The deadline for all negotiations will be August 1, 1993.

1350

The legislation will introduce a fail-safe provision in the event that fiscal targets have not been met through negotiation at the sectoral or local levels. These fail-safe mechanisms will come into effect on August 1, 1993.

These measures will ensure that fiscal targets are met.

The net result will be that by August 1, 1993, we will have assured a savings in public sector compensation of $2 billion. A further result is that the government, with public sector workers and employers, will have implemented many of the measures devised at the social contract table. We will also have made further progress in making government services more affordable and more efficient. Job security will be enhanced as well, without preventing employers from carrying out necessary changes.

There is no easy way to deal with this challenge. The plan we've implemented since March is tough and practical. It will be effective in controlling the deficit. Beyond that, it represents a balanced approached in that it achieves our target of holding the deficit below $10 billion through a variety of expenditure cuts, tax measures and cuts in public sector compensation. It is a conscientious approach in that it protects those less able to bear the burden and seeks to reduce costs in ways that preserve jobs and services to the public.

I want to make it clear, and I've discussed this with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the third party, that members of the Legislature and senior non-unionized employees of the government are all covered by this approach as well.

I'm inviting our own employees to join us as soon as possible in these negotiations. There's no need for delay, as we all know the need for results that will protect jobs and services. We're also prepared to work with our partners at the sector tables, within the legislative framework we're establishing.

PORTUGUESE COMMUNITY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship): Today I am pleased to rise on behalf of the government to pay tribute to the men and women of Portuguese origin who have contributed so much to the growth and development of Canada.

Tomorrow, June 10, is National Day of Portugal. It is also the Day of Camões, on which the life of Portugal's greatest poet, Luis de Camões, is celebrated.

This year is particularly significant for the Portuguese Canadian community: 1993 marks the 40th anniversary of the first wave of Portuguese immigrants to Canada. In 1953, the first group of workers arrived from the mainland, the Madeiras and the Azores, landing in Halifax. They did so under an agreement struck between Canada and Portugal. The agreement was labelled by both governments as "trial movements."

The emigrants were given instruction manuals which stated in part: "You are part of an emigration trial movement which is the first attempt to settle large numbers of Portuguese people in Canada.... Don't forget, therefore, that the future of many Portuguese who stay behind waiting for the opportunity given to you now, is dependent on your honesty, your hard work and your capacity to succeed."

It should also be noted that one of the main criteria for determining who would be immigrants were their hardened hands.

The Portuguese community in Ontario is today a thriving, vibrant community of over 350,000, with the largest concentration living in Toronto. Many of the succeeding generations since the pioneers are now making their mark in the professions, business and labour, whether as doctors, lawyers, dentists, teachers or business leaders.

Earlier this year, the Portuguese community established the Portuguese Canadian National Congress, which will in part act as a national voice for the Portuguese community.

I'm pleased to recognize members of the Portuguese community who are in the gallery today. They are the consul general of Portugal, Dr José Viegas; the vice-consul, Mr Ferreyra; the president of the Portuguese Canadian National Congress, Dr Tomás Ferreira; the president of Canada Portugal, Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Carlos de Castro; the president of the Alliance of Portuguese Clubs and Associations, Dr Manuel Carvalho; the vice-president, Ontario division, Portuguese Canadian National Congress, Ms Ida de Jesus.

Tomorrow evening, the Premier will honour, on behalf of the government and people of Ontario, many of the original immigrants, the pioneers from Portugal. It's one way of saying to the community as a whole, and the individuals specifically, that the contributions which you have made to Ontario and which you continue to make by your hard work, and indeed your hardened hands and your new professionalism, is highly valued. Thank you for helping to make Ontario a better place to live. Obrigada.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I am a little bit surprised but none the less rather relieved to find that the Premier appears to be taking some very specific steps to resolving what has become a totally chaotic situation. My greatest concern as I approached today was that we would have yet another delay and that that delay would extend the chaos and the uncertainty which this province has been experiencing for the last eight weeks. I think the Premier may be well aware, as I am, that none of us has ever before experienced the level of frustration and uncertainty and anxiety that people of this province have been expressing over the course of the last weeks. It was absolutely essential that the Premier take some action.

Let me tell you what we agree with in this. We agree that the government's budget targets must be met, and we have always taken that position. We have never argued with the need for restraint, although we have expressed and will continue to express our frustration that two and a half years of financial mismanagement have brought us to the point where the government has been so desperately looking to take back what it so freely gave away in the first year of this government. We are tremendously frustrated that this government waited so long to deal with this province.

But we do believe the public sector employers and employees must do their part, as those in the private sector have, and in fact we further believe the public sector employers and employees have understood this and are ready to do their part and that this is evident in the efforts that have already been made to bring about cost reductions and in fact to negotiate wage freezes.

We support the search for ways to make the reductions in costs that this government is seeking without layoffs and without cuts in essential services, and we have hoped that those ways could be found. Because of that, we have argued consistently for a reopening of local negotiations or provincial negotiations, whatever is the forum in which collective bargaining agreements are normally reached, as being the only way in which it would be possible to meet financial targets that the government has set without completely abandoning the collective bargaining process.

I continue to believe and I am, I think the word may be, "gratified" that the Premier has finally come to understand, as the municipalities have said and as we have consistently argued, as the record will show, from even before the social contract talks were opened, that the only way in which a good resolution of the need to find cost reductions could be found was at a local level and that it was going to be impossible to deal with the need for reductions with broad-brush solutions.

That is why we have continued to argue, although we recognized that every passing day was making our solution more difficult to implement, that it was only through the operation, again, of the local negotiation or provincial negotiation, as the case may be, that the best solutions could be found.

Therefore, we welcome that in the Premier's statement today there are provisions made to allow for those local negotiations to take place, or provincial negotiations if that is the customary collective bargaining forum. We truly believe that better resolutions of the need to reduce costs can be found in this process than in the kind of discussions that have been taking place in the social contract talks that we believe were doomed to fail from the beginning.

We do not believe that the government's final offer, which apparently is still to be incorporated in legislation, is workable. I can assure the Premier that we will have some very specific questions about what has been proposed in the government's final offer, what the implications of those proposals will be, and I am sure that everyone in the public sector who will be affected by the statement he has made today and by the legislation to be presented will have similar questions.

1400

I do not believe that over the course of the negotiations the government negotiators have fully understood the implications of their proposals across all of those different sectors and all of those 9,000 individual collective agreements that are going to be affected. We are going to pose those questions today, after what has been a very initial examination of the Premier's statement, and we are going to trust that when he talks about the legislation he will introduce, if local resolution is reached that is a better resolution and is agreed to by the bargaining parties, that those jurisdictions will be exempt from any broad-brush solutions that the government may impose.

We today wish success to the local and provincial negotiation process. We need to put uncertainty, anxiety and instability behind us in this province so this government can begin to concentrate some of its energies on getting this province and its people back to work.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): If only we'd listened to the Liberals the last few years, we'd have been all right.

Let me first of all comment on a few of the expressions of the Premier. He must be embarrassed. I remember him attacking Premier Peterson, quite correctly, for all these weasel words when he was in opposition. "Compensation savings": Tell us what it is -- a 5% rollback. That's what you're talking about, compensation savings. Things like "fail-safe mechanisms": That's reopening the contracts and stripping out everything that's been bargained for. At least be honest and tell the people what it is that you're talking about.

Now, Premier, listen. We have told you that your contract talks could not possibly succeed. The union leaders had no chance with credibility to keep their jobs and negotiate rolling back contracts unless three commonsense things were put on the table, unless you were firm on three areas. One, the amount: $2 billion. We think you're firm today; I hope you are, or they won't work. Secondly, the deadline. Now you're telling us August 1. July 1 the payments come off; if you're firm on that and they understand that, you'll have some chance of success. On Monday we'll get the "what if" -- what if the talks aren't successful: the legislation, the hammer that you plan to bring in.

Quite frankly, now the talks have a chance to succeed. Obviously I think they can succeed in that climate. I never thought they could before. I told you that and you all said I was wet, but I think I've been proven right.

Here's the problem. You see, for this year for municipalities, for all those whose fiscal year started January 1, the train has left the station. Shutting down hospitals for weeks or months on end, shutting down schools, people losing jobs, massive layoffs, chaos out there, another two months of chaos with the falling dollar, with interest rates, all of these things that are being affected: This is part of the problem because you've been so late in bringing the talks and putting them in the right perspective.

Premier, this can work, but I think you've got to be honest now and say that the three-year program is going to have to start on August 1. You can't go to municipalities and ask them to cut the equivalent of 10% or 12% out because their fiscal year is a half or two thirds over by the time they get to implement it. That is absolute nonsense and will create chaos out there that is not necessary at all. There are solutions even today.

Admit that you missed the significant portion of this year and that the three-year program should start August 1, and that's the only way you're going to be able to do it without absolute chaos out there and more uncertainty. Secondly, start the clock ticking on attrition. Announce today that there is a hiring freeze. Pull that Job Mart off there, pull the advertisement out of the pages. The job freeze starts today so the attrition clock can start ticking and you can take advantage of that over the next three years. Institute a wage freeze at the same time so you stop the nonsense like the Ontario Housing Corp -- condoned, supported, encouraged by your Minister of Housing: Grab your 5% now and then when it's rolled back you'll break even. That nonsense has to stop, and it's going on as we speak right here in the chamber. So start that moving.

Empower the union members, the civil servants, the extended public sector -- not the union leaders; the members who have come up with more ideas on how to save money than you yourself have.

Finally, look at your own spending. We can still meet this year's deficit targets. We could probably exceed them if you'd listen to some of the spending controls. The joke of your statement is that you say, "The government looked to its own expenditures and cut $4 billion from...programs and ministries." Pages 92-93 of the budget show you hiked your own spending over $2 billion. The only thing that's certain now is that taxpayers are hit with $2 billion and the transfer partners now are going to be hit with $2 billion. So live up to your own commitment, start cutting back your own expenditures, initiate some of these moves and we can get back on track today.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before proceeding, I would invite all members to welcome to the chamber a colleague of mine, the Honourable David Carter, the Speaker of the Legislature of Alberta, and he is with his wife. Welcome to our assembly.

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, I'd like to ask the House for unanimous consent, perhaps, to observe a moment's silence for the four workers who were killed yesterday in the unfortunate incident at the Garden City Skyway bridge in St Catharines.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed. I would ask all members, and indeed our visitors in the gallery, if you would rise, please, and observe a moment of silence.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I have a number of questions which I want to pose to the Premier on the statement that he's just made. He will recognize, of course, that in the few moments that we've had to digest the statement, there will be a number of questions about its implications which we have only begun to discover. I'd like to begin with one which is perhaps the most obvious.

The Premier has indicated very clearly that the measures that will be expected to be negotiated, whether it's sectoral or local levels, will have to ensure that the government's fiscal targets are met. He says further that the net result of any negotiations that are carried on will be that by August 1, 1993, we will have an assured savings in public sector compensation of $2 billion. I suggest to the Premier that it is not yet clear that the fiscal targets are well established. We are halfway through the budget year for many of the transfer partners. I would ask him whether or not he is expecting that the full 5% financial target which this government has established is going to have to be achieved within the current fiscal or contract year on the part of all of those negotiating new contracts.

1410

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The $2-billion target which the government has set out is to be achieved in our fiscal year. Obviously those are the targets that are set out in our fiscal year and there are partners who have different fiscal years than we do. We all understand that, for example, the municipalities' dates end at the end of December. So, obviously there's room for discussion, and in fact already at the municipal table there have been extensive discussions. I was discussing it, in fact, even today with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.

I appreciated the tone and substance of the response from the Leader of the Opposition today, and would say to her that obviously we're going to be discussing with our partners how we can effect these changes while ensuring services and while ensuring jobs for people. That's exactly the reason why we think there needs to be a process of sectoral and local discussions and also ways for people to discuss some of these issues directly with the government.

Mrs McLeod: In expressing my very clear sense that this chaos has to be brought to some resolution, I wouldn't want the Premier to mistake the fact that I have some very grave concerns and reservations about some of the directions that the government has taken and is likely to continue to take. I've made it very clear that I have very real concerns about the broad-brush final offer that the government put on the table, so it causes me concern, again, to see that that same last offer is likely to be incorporated into legislation. Again, I will be raising concerns about the implication of those proposals for the various sectors. I truly believe it is not possible to implement those proposals.

It therefore leads me to a question about what the Premier refers to simply in his statement as "fail-safe provisions." I would ask you what the fail-safe provision is likely to be. I would ask you, secondly, whether or not the fail-safe provision is likely to be the government's last offer. And I would ask you, finally, what the fail-safe provision does to good-faith bargaining that is now expected to take place.

Hon Mr Rae: That's the whole point. I will say to the honourable member, without being flip at all, that in terms of the details of that, she will have to wait for the legislation on Monday. But I would say to her that the purpose of it is precisely to ensure the need for good-faith bargaining, which we've tried to ensure all the way through, and that's been the whole purpose of what we're about. At the same time, I would say --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): You interfered in collective bargaining in a way that is unheard of in this province.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Rae: I'm being heckled, Mr Speaker, unmercifully by the member from Oriole, who's accusing us of something. I would say to her -- I think I can withstand the attack. Somehow I feel that way. But I would say to her that, while I answer the Leader of the Opposition and try to deal with her directly, her leader is saying: "Yes, meet the targets. Yes, bargain in good faith. Yes, provide for local solutions." I hope she would also agree with me that we also want to avoid the pain of layoffs being exacted on the most vulnerable and those whose jobs need to be protected and who may not have a union at all, who may not have anyone bargaining for them at all. Therefore, there has to be some way of ensuring that when we reach the August 1 date, the legislation is sensitive to all of those factors, as well as, obviously, the need to respect bargaining.

We have a responsibility to respect services, we have a responsibility to deal with the problems of people who don't have a bargaining agent and who don't have a union, and we need to find a balance. That's precisely what the province is doing, and we are doing it in response to requests from employees. We're doing it in response to requests from many employers --

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

Hon Mr Rae: -- who have also said they believe in flexibility; they also believe in the need for firmness in meeting the financial targets. That's precisely the direction that the government is taking, and I think it's a wise course for the province.

Mrs McLeod: The Premier has on occasion been known to be somewhat flip when we have in fact been deeply concerned about an issue. He has more often, over the course of the last eight weeks, simply been evasive. I trust that the Premier will now recognize that we have been raising day after day what we believe to be legitimate and important questions about the directions that his government has been taking and about proposals that they have been putting on the table in the name of negotiation towards resolution. We are going to now re-raise those questions, Premier, because they still demand answers.

One of the questions which we raised last week, which clearly is not addressed by anything which is in your statement today but which begs an answer, is: As you say that transfer payments will start to be cut as of July 1, how are you going to deal with the fact that you pay no transfer payments to the Metropolitan Toronto school boards, to the Ottawa school boards, that Hydro is not a recipient of transfer payments -- it's totally independent from the government -- that the municipal electric utilities that are also involved in this receive no money from the government? How are you now going to expect those boards and utilities to contribute to your financial reductions?

Hon Mr Rae: It's important for the member to know and I'll answer again. I'm not being evasive when I say that obviously the legislation will have to address the question of some of the issues of equity across the whole of the public sector, but we want to do it in a way that's not going to be so intrusive as to prevent local partners and local parties from reaching solutions.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): I would suggest that I am also being consistent when I ended my response to the Premier's statement by saying that it is important for us to resolve this chaotic situation in order to be able to move on and concentrate energies on getting people working again. It is therefore consistent that every day I have asked a question about jobs and employment in this province, and in consistency I will do so again.

My question is to the Premier. Premier, your government has always held up the $25-million Jobs Ontario Youth program as being the centrepiece of its youth initiatives. We have said that this is not enough to deal with the crisis that is facing our young people, although we have also said that we felt it was at least going partway. We have criticized your government on the program because it has been a repackaging of existing program dollars and there is really only $14 million in new jobs funding under Jobs Ontario Youth.

Now we have learned that that entire $14 million is only available to youth in selected communities in Ontario. If you do not live in Metropolitan Toronto, Ottawa, Hamilton or Windsor, there are no jobs available to you under this program. I ask you, on what basis is the Jobs Ontario Youth funding targeted only to Metro, Ottawa, Hamilton and Windsor?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to allow the Minister of Education and Training to answer that question.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I think the Leader of the Opposition will remember that last year a similar type of allocation was made under the Jobs Ontario Youth program, and the reason that moneys are targeted to those particular communities is primarily because of the high unemployment rate among youth, the particular difficulty among racial minority youth in those communities. Obviously we're trying to target particular problems that are larger in those communities than in other communities across the province.

Mrs McLeod: If I heard the minister correctly, he is saying that the problem of youth unemployment is more severe in some communities than it is in others. I would indeed tell the minister that all this does is show that this government is completely out of touch with the crisis that is faced by young people right across this province.

Jobs Ontario Youth is your only new initiative in the area of youth programs and it does not live up to its name of being a provincial program. I would tell you that youth unemployment is a crisis in Sudbury and Niagara Falls and Sarnia and London and Kitchener-Waterloo and Brantford and Sault Ste Marie and Belleville, and I will just tell you the statistics.

Youth unemployment in northeast Ontario 28.5%; in the northwest 25.2%; in the Niagara region 22.5%; in Peterborough-Belleville 26.3%, and you have decided that the young people of these communities do not deserve Jobs Ontario assistance. How did you decide that Windsor would receive jobs but not Sudbury, where youth unemployment is a severe problem, and not St Catharines and not Peterborough and not Belleville?

Hon Mr Cooke: The Leader of the Opposition can use all the rhetoric that she wants to use, but the fact of the matter is that there's $180 million being spent on job creation programs for young people in this province. There's a significant amount of the Jobs Ontario Training money going to young people in the province. She's talking about $14 million out of $180 million plus that is targeted to particular communities.

It's absolutely ridiculous, unfair and inaccurate for her to say that we don't care about young people in other communities across the province. We're putting more money into job creation for young people in this province than has ever taken place in the history of this province. So no matter how much rhetoric she wants to use, the fact of the matter is this government is doing more than has ever been done before or was ever contemplated by that party over there.

1420

Mrs McLeod: This minister began his first response by saying that the Jobs Ontario Youth program was targeted to communities where there was high unemployment among young people and where those programs were needed. We agree that the program needs to be directed towards communities where there is high unemployment among young people.

We do not disagree that when Metropolitan Toronto has a youth unemployment rate of 17.1%, that is completely unacceptable, that constitutes a crisis, and that Metro Toronto does need employment programs for its young people. But I remind the minister of the statistics, and perhaps I should repeat them: for northern Ontario, 28.5% in the east and 25.2% in the west; Niagara region, 22.5%; Peterborough-Belleville, 26.3%.

Your flagship program, your only program to deal with the problems of youth unemployment, has frozen out most of the province. The question is, why are the young people in some communities more deserving of help than in other communities?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is absolutely nonsense and the Leader of the Opposition knows that it's nonsense.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): That's what your program is doing.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to answer but it's hard to answer when everybody in the Liberal Party is yelling.

The fact of the matter is, again just so that it might sink in over there, there's $180 million being spent on job creation for young people. There's $25 million in the Jobs Ontario Youth program alone. The Leader of the Opposition has for some reason taken the $14 million out of the Jobs Ontario Youth program and she's forgotten about the other $11 million. The other $11 million is being spent across the province. So everybody in the province shares with the Jobs Ontario Youth program, and there's the balance of the $180 million plus -- I believe about 25% of the jobs -- through the Jobs Ontario Training program.

So once again there is more money being spent on job creation for young people in this province than has ever taken place in the history of the province, and instead of criticizing that, perhaps the leader would at least recognize that we're doing more than her government ever tried to do.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, two months ago, I told you that you needed to make a definitive statement on your government's position. You needed to be firm on three things: the amount you needed to cut, the deadline and, finally, what you needed to do if talks failed.

To be successful, to give the union leaders an opportunity to negotiate and still be, after the next election, union leaders, this is exactly what you had to do. Even though you danced around my question yesterday, you are now obviously admitting that you have to be firm on these three things for negotiations to be successful. That's fine and we agree with you, and I think you have a chance now.

Because of all the dithering and the failure to act last fall for January 1, or January 1 for the fiscal year, for those that started on your government fiscal year, because you're halfway through the year-ends for many, will you now admit that to achieve these targets for 1993 without chaos is impossible for your transfer partners to do, and will you agree today to sit down with all those who are interested in finding savings and find at least some of the $2 billion in expenditure cuts and your other expenditure areas that you did not find in your budget? Will you agree to let us start to do that?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I've heard the suggestions of the Conservative Party that he's put out with respect to the program. If I recall correctly, it involved abandoning the affordable housing program. I was opening the Ismaili housing development in Richmond Hill, in the Jubilee Gardens project, and I can assure the honourable member that to cancel that program would be greeted with bewilderment in all those communities that are looking for affordable housing, and with derision by a housing industry that sees us as providing some incentive at a time when the market is down. So I would say to the honourable member, we don't agree with that proposal, but if you have a particular proposal to make, again any additional proposals to make, of course.

I want to just say again to him that I don't share the premise, and I don't think a lot of other people do either, that there should be any doubt or uncertainty with respect to what the government has set out in its budget and prior to the budget in initiating the social contract discussions, and I would take very strong issue with him in terms of saying that what the government is proposing is unreasonable or that our approach is unsound. I think it's very reasonable and I think it's very sound and I think that's a strong majority opinion in the province.

Mr Harris: I think it would have been reasonable and very sound had we been dealing with this before the fiscal year was half over or two thirds over for many of the transfer partners -- very sound. If you won't accept the billions and billions and billions of dollars of cuts that we've been prepared to go with you and to help you find -- your own employees have given you other billions; we've given you many alternatives -- then you're going to start to create chaos and uncertainty in this province that we will pay another price for.

Premier, it's in everyone's interests to ensure that if talks proceed on the talks, the deck is not stacked against them. Another of the reasons I believe your talks failed in the last round is because you did not have enough people at the table who are experienced in the kind of settlement you need to reach.

There are many people out there in management and on the employees' side who have a great deal of experience in downsizing, in doing things more efficiently. I give you the Canadian Auto Workers, for example, both union side and management side experienced in how half the number of workers can produce the same number of cars and better cars than how they've done that over the last 20 years.

Why, Premier, would you not consider bringing into the talks some of those labour leaders and employers who have had experience in downsizing? I give you people like Buzz Hargrove, who I think has great experience in that. I give you people like Cliff Pilkey. Why would you not invite these kinds of people to help you give the expertise you need to reach the kind of settlement you need?

Hon Mr Rae: Anybody who would suggest that the leader of the third party doesn't have a sense of humour, I think that we all realize that. We go from, the other day, his ally Ned Pratt to today his colleague in arms Buzz Hargrove. I congratulate that.

Mr Harris: I'll call Buzz. He'll help you with that.

Hon Mr Rae: I've had lots of advice from Mr Hargrove and from others.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Don't do it, Bob.

Hon Mr Rae: I intend to stay the course.

Let me say with a degree of seriousness to the member, since I know he put forward a serious suggestion, that both within the context of the Premier's Council and within the context of the labour-management advisory committee, both of which involve union and management people coming together, we've had a lot of discussions about the organization of work.

Mr Walter Curlook from Inco and Mr Fred Pomeroy, the vice-president of the new amalgamated union of communications workers and paper workers and energy and chemical workers, have given me lots of good advice about the reorganization of the workplace, and that's the kind of advice that we're trying to apply. So I take the comment seriously, even if I certainly detected a certain degree of tongue-in-cheek in the suggestion.

Mr Harris: No, there was absolutely no tongue-in-cheek, and I appreciate that you take the comment seriously.

I, as a number of others, have been very concerned that when you look on the government management side and the union management side over the last 10 years in this province, all have been very successful at spending more money and hiring more people and upsizing, but there's not a lot of experience there in how to be more efficient, delivering services more effectively and downsizing. I've given you suggestions of people. I think you need more than just advice to you personally. I think they have to be at the negotiating table, because that's where I think the lack of experience is.

Let me give you another suggestion. I believe, for whatever well-intentioned purpose, that Michael Decter now has lost a great deal of credibility as far as the negotiations go, and those you've had there as his team. Would you now consider bringing in professional mediators, a Victor Pathe, if you will, or others who have experience in bringing parties together? Will you take that advice and that suggestion, at least in dealing with your own 90,000 civil servants?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, I want to say that Mr Decter and his team worked very hard and with a great deal of professionalism to --

Mr Harris: No doubt they just didn't have experience.

Hon Mr Rae: Well, I would only say to the honourable member that obviously the process that's under way will have to draw on the very best people, and that's exactly what we intend to do.

1430

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: My second question is to the Premier as well. Because you were not firm two months ago, you've lost a great deal of time. We'll soon be into the second half of 1993 without any cuts having been made to the wage bill to date. Premier, while your social contract talks continue, I feel very strongly that there are many things you should be doing to help this process along right now.

For example, there is the Job Mart, of which I have a copy. Here's just one where there are all kinds of jobs advertised outside the existing public sector, for jobs. There are newspapers every day that have it in. This is your own classified paper.

To help us to look at downsizing, would you not agree that the sooner we get this attrition clock ticking, the sooner we will get savings? Will you today announce unequivocally that there is a hiring freeze in the Ontario public sector?

Hon Mr Rae: We've already announced very clearly the government's plans to reduce the number of employees in the public service.

Mr Harris: That's right, but if you brought a hiring freeze in, if you stopped this nonsense, if you stopped your silly Minister of Housing from encouraging 5% hikes, so then they could be rolled back -- you've got to state unequivocally that this nonsense has to stop. Why make the problem even tougher? As absurd as it may be, the truth is that not one person in your office, not one person in your cabinet, has given serious thought about a backup plan if the social contract talks fail.

I'm only here trying to help you in this last-minute dash or scramble to salvage something and to get some sense out of this. Last week, and again on Monday, I outlined a plan to permanently downsize government over three years, through attrition and a hiring freeze. You said that won't solve all the problems. I agree it won't solve all the problems. But it will solve 56,000 of the problems, which is more than 5%. In fact, it's 6% or 6.5% of the existing broad public service. It will do it without unnecessary layoffs. It will do it without unnecessary hardship to our public servants. Premier, you dismissed that out of hand.

While talks continue, while you pursue other options, while you work on other fronts, will you take this option and implement it today, so that the attrition clock can begin ticking now, as it should have two years ago, as it should have January 1, as it should have two months ago? Why wait another day?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I've already answered the question.

Mr Harris: You've answered the question, but you've got no action. You don't do anything. The problem's getting worse and worse and worse to solve as we go on. So far, all we've got from you is Monday you're going to do something. We still haven't seen it.

Premier, let me, by way of final supplementary, ask you this: Turnaround management in the private sector has taught us that many of the real ideas on efficiency and on effectiveness have come up from the shop floor. Many of them have come from right there, from the front-line workers. Yet the hardworking men and women who make up the broader public sector of this province have been conspicuously absent from your social contract table.

The dedicated union and non-union people I've talked to in North Bay and around the province, and the ones who have been phoning in daily while this process has been going on, tell me that they're willing to share in the economic sacrifice that's going to be required to get this province on track. I know that's not the position of Sid Ryan and Liz Barkley; they've got other agendas that they have to get elected to. I understand that.

To empower the 940,000 working men and women of the broad public sector, though, will you immediately seek their advice? Will you consult them directly, by way of ballot or referendum or write-in suggestions today that can be brought either to the table or the cabinet table, to the solutions?

Hon Mr Rae: That's exactly what we've been doing.

CORPORATE MINIMUM TAX

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It's a sad commentary that in Bob Rae's Ontario the government members are critical of someone who is trying to promote the export of Canadian technology.

I should say to the Minister of Finance that last week, the Premier referred to your "brilliant" budget speech. I have a less charitable view of that document and I'd like to just talk to you about one of the provisions. I'm interested in your corporate minimum tax and what this new tax means for the competitiveness of some of our companies.

On page 30 of the corporate minimum tax document, Improving Tax Fairness, you say the minimum corporate tax will increase the marginal effective tax rate of large, profitable, non-tax-paying corporations. I'm sure you know that this will effectively raise the cost of doing business for these companies in Ontario.

On page 31 you go on to say -- and I think this is where there is a decided lack of brilliance -- "The corporate minimum tax will help to establish a tax environment that will lead to investment decisions based more on economic considerations and less on tax considerations."

This, surely, is a contradiction. The minister will acknowledge that tax considerations are one of the most integral components of economic considerations. My question to the minister is this: Do you not agree that tax considerations and economic considerations are inseparable and have an influence on investment decisions?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I think the member from Wilson Heights is stretching the cloth a bit thin. The fact is that without a corporate minimum tax, in my view there was an opportunity for some companies, completely and absolutely within the law, of course, to take advantage of what are known as tax expenditures to reduce what would otherwise be a profitable year down to one in which they paid absolutely no taxes whatsoever.

What we're trying to do is establish a fairness in the corporate tax system so that one company with very similar profits without this tax pays tax and another one does not. I would think this makes it a more level playing field than would otherwise be the case.

Mr Kwinter: The minister understands, I'm sure, the economic principle underlying my question about the fact that taxes cannot be separated out as an economic consideration for an investment decision.

A company has a number of projects that will make money, given the prevailing tax regime. When you raise the tax rate the firm faces, some of these projects become uneconomic. In other words, the company will not go ahead with certain investments because of the higher taxes.

Mr Minister, I'm sure you saw the article that appeared in the Toronto Star today in which the University of Toronto Institute for Policy Analysis talked about the influence of increased taxes. They say: "Without the tax increases" -- and I admit they're talking about the GST, but they're talking about the concept of tax increases. They're saying that without that "the economy would be nearly 5% larger, an additional 303,000 Canadians would be working and inflation would be virtually non-existent."

When we are in a position where every new job is needed in this province, why did you introduce this new corporate minimum tax, which will surely stop some new investment in its tracks?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the corporate minimum tax that's going to commence on January 1, 1994, is hardly a punitive or onerous tax. The United States has had a corporate minimum tax for some time now. It's very difficult to compare the two tax rates, given the different tax regimes. But I can tell the member opposite -- and I would not want to be partisan on an issue such as this -- that since I took this position, I have received a lot more complaints about the employer's health tax introduced by his government, about the commercial concentration tax introduced by his government and about the tire tax introduced by his government than I have on the corporate minimum tax introduced in this budget.

1440

BRIDGE ACCIDENT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the Minister of Labour. I am extremely disappointed that no statement has been made concerning the tragic death of the four workers in St Catharines yesterday. Minister, it is your responsibility to give assurance to the families, to the members of this House and to workers in this province that this tragedy will not occur again in another community.

What action have you personally taken to give that type of guarantee to people in this province, to those families and to workers that a similar tragedy will not happen elsewhere in this province in the future?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This is indeed a tragic accident, and I want to express my condolences to the families of the four men who died.

The Ministry of Labour is currently conducting an investigation at the scene. We have a full team of people down there, along with the Niagara Regional Police and the coroner's office, and when we have the results, we'll report back to the House on that investigation.

Mrs Witmer: I would have appreciated an answer which was more specific. I would specifically like to ask you the following questions: Why is the investigation going to take several weeks? Will you call an inquest? Why were some workers on the job, while others were home because of the rain?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I understand that there will be an inquest; that has been decided. I can also tell you that I don't think the investigation is going to take several weeks. This is a tragic situation that we have been very concerned with, and as soon as we have the information --

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): How can you give us assurance that this isn't going to happen in Thunder Bay on that bridge? Where have you been? And no statement in the House is a disgrace.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the leader of the third party.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm not going to speculate on what happened until we have the answers, to the member across the way.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN NIAGARA FALLS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. About a week ago, I attended the Niagara region --

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): Self-serving sensitivity.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Oakville South.

Ms Harrington: About a week I attended the Niagara region's economic development summit at Brock University. Mr George Schrivjer, a leading consultant on manufacturing competitiveness, presented some very interesting findings from a survey of 100 of Niagara's industries.

He found, while multinational companies' hiring projections are in fact down, Canadian companies' projections --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Oakville South, come to order. Will the member take her seat.

Mr Carr: You've got no backbone.

The Speaker: I again ask the member for Oakville South to please come to order.

Mr Carr: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Well, it would be very helpful if all members could just resist the temptation for interjections and allow the honourable member for Niagara Falls to place her question.

Ms Harrington: He found that while multinational companies' hiring projections are in fact down for the future, Canadian companies' projections are up.

You will want to know, Madam Minister, that this reflects a decline in the labour- and hydro-intensive, non-specialized industries and an increase in more specialized high-tech industries.

He concluded that product value, not cost, is important, that training is most important now, and indeed smaller Canadian companies have the advantage of being fast, flexible and responsive to the marketplace. His most important message: He urged all the region to have the courage to put our self-interests aside and work together on behalf of the community of Niagara as a whole.

I will send this report over to you, Madam Minister.

The regional chair is now setting up a committee for immediate action within the next 60 days. We do need your help. What can you do to help this initiative right now?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Despite the comments from the member opposite, I think we can be more constructive than that. I'd say to the member who asked the question that in fact the economic summit that was held I think was a very, very good step forward in that it brought together representatives of all facets of the community, and I appreciate her sending me a copy of that.

The summit and the involvement of all aspects of the community in the task force that's been set up and the work that's going to be done is the number one important thing for us to support and continue.

I think the ministry and government have to be able to respond in a timely fashion. I will coordinate, through an interministerial process, bringing together all the players that need to be able to be at the table to respond to your community's action plan so that you don't have to spend time running around from ministry to ministry and the various programs. I think we can facilitate that.

As you know, our ministry was responsible for assisting with the funding of the study in the first place. I think the results, some of the new programs we've put in place, the sector partnership fund and others which really look to supporting training, culture, innovation and those sorts of things, clearly reflect what was found in your region, and I think we're well positioned to be of assistance.

Ms Harrington: A week ago Saturday, I met with the Working Futures Coalition, which is the purple ribbon campaign in Niagara. Madam Minister, they very much want you to come to Niagara to meet with all those who are involved and help them in this working together process. I am asking if you will be able to come.

Hon Ms Lankin: Nothing like putting me on the spot in the House. I appreciate the question from the member. I assure the member that I look forward to meeting people in Niagara. I don't have a date on my calendar right now. I know there's a request in, and I'll try to get her an answer to that question as soon as possible.

But may I say that I really do want to thank the effort of the chair and others, who recognized the need to make the summit and the task force all-inclusive. I think this is really becoming a community-driven process, and that will lead to its success in the end.

BUILDING CODE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Housing. You've received some correspondence from the Ontario Home Builders' Association, and the Premier has received similar correspondence, relating to the implementation of the rule changes to the Ontario Building Code that will go into effect very shortly. The specific rule change that I refer to is the requirement that new home builders, under these new regulations, will be required to insulate all basements from floor to ceiling. I'm sure you're familiar with those.

The building community and the real estate community are quite concerned about the impact of these regulations. They support the principle and they work with your ministry in trying to come up with amendments to the Ontario Building Code, but they've said to you and the Premier and others, and they want me to ask you, will you look at delaying the implementation of these regulations? Because the direct impact, Minister, is between $3,000 and $5,000 in additional costs on each new home, depending on the size of the home.

This is clearly an opportunity for you to send an economic signal to the housing industry and the real estate industry that you're going to do something to not increase the price of housing at a time when new home starts in the city of Toronto area alone, June over June of last year, have dropped some 32%. The industry is in terrible recession. They are very frightened. Sales have fallen off the table. Minister, they're looking to you for help. Will you delay the implementation of this regulation?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member is asking a question with lots of information in it, most of which is correct, as he recognizes the Ministry of Housing did work very closely with members of the home builders' association and the insulators' representatives and with energy consultants to work out the most effective way of providing that new housing would have full-height basement insulation.

The cost of that has been estimated, for the average new home, at a very low amount on a mortgage, that looks like a reasonable mortgage over the next few years. I'd be glad to provide the member with that information. We're talking under $10 a month to have full-height basement insulation added to the mortgage cost, and I think most investors in a new home would want to have that kind of guarantee against rising energy prices in the future.

1450

Mr Mahoney: I've never heard such nonsense in my life. I don't need you to provide me with the cost, Minister. Maybe I should be providing you with the cost. Let me give you the cost right here in black and white: framing, $110; wiring, $225; insulation, $280; air vapour and moisture barriers, $105; drywall, $470; paint, $110; drainage barrier, $1,000; rigid glass fibre, $1,500; air gap membrane, $2,200. That's $3,100. You're saying it's $10 a month on a mortgage. It's the same mentality you have with financing all your non-profit schemes over 35 years. You're not the Minister of Housing; you're the minister of non-profit housing.

Here's a private sector group that is showing you how you can save consumers between $3,000 and $5,000 on the price of a house. It will create jobs. It will create development. It will allow people to buy new homes. They will buy appliances. They will buy furniture --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member place a question, please.

Mr Mahoney: You can get off your duff and do something for this economy. It's a very reasonable request. Simply delay the implementation of this regulation to allow the housing industry to survive the ravages of this recession. Will you do that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think the member is making light of a very serious matter. He doesn't have to make references to my anatomy to try to make his point. I would suggest that it is well worth his while to take a look at the costs that are spread out on a mortgage, which is how most people buy their homes, and to say to himself and to agree with others who have looked at this matter in depth that it is a protection in the future for home owners to have a well-insulated basement.

Mr Mahoney: You're a disgrace. You're a socialist disgrace.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Ms Gigantes: In the future, we don't want the same kind of energy mistakes being made that are costly to people that people in both those parties made with Ontario Hydro over the years.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Minister, you are probably aware that earlier this week a federal Employment and Immigration spokesman reported that there are 11,000 warrants that have been issued for refugees and other immigrants who have gone into hiding in the greater Toronto area and are continuing to collect welfare and other benefits paid by your government. Most all of these individuals have been here for over four years.

These warrants have been put on the computers within your own government, in the police stations in the greater Toronto area and the immigration computers federally, but not on your own ministry computers from which you distribute your social assistance funds. The federal refugee backlog program has been in effect the entire term of your government, yet you have not expressed any interest in cooperating with the police or the federal government.

The Provincial Auditor has indicated that welfare fraud and social assistance fraud in this province could be as high as $600 million. That should be a compelling reason. That's why I ask the minister why he is not cooperating with these other two levels of public administration to ensure the taxpayers have a system of social assistance which is fair to taxpayers and recipients. How can you stand in the House and not cooperate --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the member complete his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- with these levels of government in order to effect these savings for taxpayers?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I don't know where the member gets the information that we would not be cooperating with either the police or the federal authorities to get at any issue that might be dealing with potential fraud in the system. I'd be happy to look into the particular situation and, if need be, come back to the House with a more specific answer. But I would say to him that certainly everything we are doing in the ministry around the question of potential fraud in the system has been to take that issue very seriously.

In fact, there are a number of initiatives that are under way, that have been under way for some time and to which we've added in the last expenditure control plan, to do a case review of files where we believe there may be some further saving. We certainly would intend to continue cooperating. If the member has any particular information he wants to share with me, I'd be happy to receive it.

Mr Jackson: I don't know where this minister's been. The Progressive Conservative caucus has been presenting for two years means by which we can save taxpayers half a billion dollars in unnecessary, inappropriate or defrauded payments to recipients in this province. This program I'm bringing to your attention is almost five years old, and you're now saying that you would like more information on it.

Minister, the fact is that this level of cooperation has been occurring in the province of Quebec for several years. I will send over to you a copy of the Quebec legislation which was implemented 19 months ago. A copy of this was given to your predecessor, and nothing's been said or done about it. It is called Gens des services des réseaux: Guide de direction et de vérification. This is the legislation in specific and regulations in the province of Quebec. I'd ask the minister to read them.

In your social contract talks that have broken down, one of the first items put on the table by the civil service in this province was that they believe, the people who handle the payments, that you can save half a billion dollars in your welfare system.

The Speaker: Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: That's why they've asked for whistle-blowing legislation to protect them and why they're asking, Minister, that you and your government listen to them.

Please, Minister, will you look at this report, because taxpayers expect that we have a welfare system --

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

Mr Jackson: -- that is sensitive to recipients and fair to taxpayers who are footing the bill. I would like you to look into this issue of the 11,000 illegal immigrants in this province collecting welfare and report back --

The Speaker: The question's been asked.

Hon Mr Silipo: Again I would say to the member that we continue to take the issue of fraud in the system quite seriously. He will know that one of the things we have done through the expenditure reductions beyond the issue that I mentioned in my earlier answer is to look at how we could align our regulations to be more in keeping with the changes specifically around the question of the refugee claimant process. I will be happy to take a look at the proposals he's given me.

I will say to him, as he's mentioned the province of Quebec, that we are involved in some activities directly with that province around the question of fraud as they relate to people on both sides of the border, and I certainly intend for us to continue our efforts to deal with questions of fraud in the system in order that we can ensure that the services and the benefits are there for the people who need them.

WASTE REDUCTION

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The people of Ontario have made tremendous strides in their efforts to reduce waste by practising the 3Rs, reducing, reusing and recycling, and have met the goal of 25% diversion from landfill in 1992.

As you know, it is our intent to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill by at least 50% by the year 2000. Your ministry is making law the new 3Rs regulations which will require municipalities and other sectors, if they have not already done so, to develop reduction, reuse and recycling activities to meet that goal.

As you know, we are living in difficult times of fiscal restraint, cost cutting and funding reductions. In my constituency of Kingston and The Islands, there is great concern about the provincial waste management master plan program. On behalf of the city of Kingston, I ask you why the responsibility of waste management planning and the associated costs remain in the hands of the city and the township of Kingston instead of with the province.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The reason that waste management planning is the responsibility of the municipality is so the municipality will be able to design plans which best meet the needs and concerns of the local people in the community. The province offers waste management master planning assistance to the municipalities.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Mississauga West.

Hon Mr Wildman: In the case of Kingston, the ministry is committed to providing $680,000 in funding for that city's waste management master plan.

Mr Gary Wilson: The waste management master plan program has provided support to the Kingston plan, but there are problems with it, particularly in terms of 3Rs acceleration, planning guidance and customer service from the ministries. What is the Minister of Environment and Energy doing to improve this program?

1500

Hon Mr Wildman: The ministry has published Initiatives Paper No 2, Waste Management Planning in Ontario, which recommended a number of reforms to the master planning process. As a result of the comments that we've received across the province on that paper, the program is undergoing extensive review and restructuring. For one, no longer will the 3Rs planning be held up as part of a more complex landfill-siting process; they will be separate. We are providing new guidance documents for planning and policy and, as an example of trying to expedite the process, the Ministry of Environment and Energy will appoint advisers as primary contacts for municipalities, to provide clear and consistent and timely advice in the waste management planning studies that are carried on by the city, and the city and the township of Kingston will be able to benefit from that.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Charles Beer (York North): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. It concerns Bill 4 and the issue of what are termed "hard-to-serve children." As you know, there is currently in the Education Act a section that deals with those youngsters who have severe and often multiple disabilities. The act sets out a process through which parents can have their son or daughter designated as hard to serve and thereby receive special funding so their child can receive appropriate educational instruction. Bill 4 would remove this right and this process.

Yesterday the standing committee on social development heard a disturbing story from two witnesses that your ministry is telling parents of hard-to-serve children that upon passage of Bill 4 you will be seeking retroactively to claw back funds which your ministry has already provided these families. These parents and those children have been through enough.

My question is simply this: Minister, will you make a commitment to them today that they will not have to repay any funds that were provided to them by your ministry in a legal and in an appropriate way? Will you make that commitment?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): A similar-type question was asked yesterday by the critic for the third party. I indicated to her that the dates within the legislation are not particularly new, that other pieces of legislation that were in the House that have now been brought together as an omnibus bill reflect the previous legislation.

But I certainly have also heard the concerns, and they've been expressed by yourself as well as the critic for the third party, and I will take a look at the specific concerns that parents are having. I understand that the numbers of students affected are very small and I certainly give the commitment that I'll take a look at the issue and respond quickly.

Mr Beer: I appreciate that the minister will do that. But regardless of whether it is 1 or 6 or 100, the need is real and is immediate. I would draw your attention, when looking into this matter, to the presentation made by the parents of hard-to-serve children, and I quote: "The ministry has gone so far as to inform parents of this group that the ministry is going to want its money back. That is terribly threatening, particularly when a disabled child has legally and properly received the benefit under Ontario law."

Secondly, you might be interested in looking at a letter from a member of the ministry staff, dated November 6, 1992, with respect to Terry Mogford. Mrs Mogford was before the committee yesterday. Minister, the question again is very simple, and quite frankly I don't think it will take a great deal of time to look into and I would urge you to make the decision before the committee rises.

Again that question is, will you make sure that those individuals do not have to repay any moneys which they legally and appropriately had received? That is the commitment that is being asked from you.

Hon Mr Cooke: Maybe I misunderstood part of the thrust of the question. I can assure the member that the Ministry of Education is not going to be going back and asking people to repay money. In fact, it is my understanding that the commitment is that when the legislation is passed, the ministry will continue to fund students until the end of the school year. So there's not going to be any retroactive collection of payments that the ministry has made back to June 2, 1990, the date that's in the legislation. So I can assure the member that that's not the case, not the intention, not the plan, nor will it happen.

LANDFILL

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. The dump saga continues in York region, and now we are reaching the most horrific part. The Interim Waste Authority has released data on the final sites in the selection process, and all the sites have failed the hydrological tests. All the sites have sand and gravel deposits under them, the sites have sand and salt under them, and a number of the sites have large aquifers underneath them.

As a result, when the Interim Waste Authority goes to the next stage and should any of these sites be selected, all of the sites in York region will require at least two clay liners and two of the sites in Vaughan would require three -- that's three -- clay liners. The Interim Waste Authority has not identified the cost of the clay, which could cost well over $100 million for this project. So I ask you, are you prepared to release more information on the cost of this sham and will you stop the interim waste process from selecting any one of these sites and will you review other alternatives?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member knows full well that the government will not intervene in the Interim Waste Authority's work. It is their responsibility to identify sites and to determine which sites they believe to be the most appropriate that would meet the environmental requirements and that would then be subject to an environmental assessment. It would be most inappropriate for the government to intervene and to in any way prejudice an environmental assessment of any of the sites that might be proposed.

Mr Cousens: The honourable member from Etobicoke reminds me how this government has changed its mind on its list when the Premier made a promise, but the fact now is that the Interim Waste Authority is out of control. It's totally out of control, and for you to stand back there and not get involved and not understand how serious this is to the people of York region is to make the matters even worse.

York region has now found that none of the sites are suitable and they're all going to be ineffective as far as protecting the lands and surfaces around them. It's all going to be done at great cost to the taxpayer. You spent $30 million already; now it could be up to $120 million for the extra clay liners. We're talking costs that are just out of control. You refuse to consider alternatives, but your head puppet, Mr Pitman, is making deals for the expansion of Keele Valley as we talk and yet you're also changing the rules of the process.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place a question, please.

Mr Cousens: The original rules were that the height of these would not exceed 40 to 45 feet. Now, in fact, because of the hydrological conditions, the height of these sites in York region --

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Cousens: -- and the one in Markham could be over 200 feet. York region will have a wonder of the world: the great pyramids of garbage.

I say, when will you halt the process and consider other alternatives to making a wreck and ruin of our communities in York region?

Hon Mr Wildman: I understand the emotion with which the member and many of his constituents view this difficult issue. However, I don't think it's appropriate for terms such as "puppet" to be used in relation --

Mr Cousens: He is a puppet.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Markham.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- to a distinguished former member of this Legislature --

Mr Cousens: A former NDP socialist appointed by you to interface between the community. He is a puppet.

The Speaker: Would the member for Markham please come to order.

Hon Mr Wildman: -- who has served with distinction both in this Legislature and in the province. It is most inappropriate for that member to have the gall to use those kinds of terms in relation to a distinguished member of society in this province.

Mr Cousens: He is a puppet. What are you? You are a puppet of someone else in the dump legislation.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: The member also suggests that I should in some way halt a process which is an independent one. He also suggests that this government is unprepared to look at alternatives when he knows full well that I have said on a number of occasions that if a proponent wishes to put forward an EA on alternatives, they are welcome to do so.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, why doesn't he understand?

The Speaker: What I understand is that the member is out of order right now.

1510

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads as follows:

"Whereas the provincial government in its expenditure control plan, without consultation, has proposed to reduce the ability of new family practitioners, paediatricians and psychiatrists to receive full payment from the Ontario Health Insurance Plan for services provided;

"Whereas the reduction of payments to these physicians will result in the lack of their ability to practise medicine;

"Whereas these same reductions in payments will limit the choice the citizens of Ontario will have in selecting a physician of their choice,

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

"The Ontario government must reconsider this arbitrary and restrictive decision and look at alternatives in consultation with the Ontario Medical Association and the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario."

I concur heartily with this petition. I've affixed my name to it, and urge the government to make the announcement of the policy and to bring that forward immediately, because these students are graduating now and must know what the government intends to do.

HEALTH EDUCATION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have many petitions here from churches in my area, many individuals, almost over 3,000 signatures. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Toronto Board of Education is already endangering the health of children, discriminating against heterosexuals by distributing the dangerous and heterophobic sexual orientation guide as well as the so-called AIDS education flyers which condone and recommend buggery, anal intercourse and teaching that anal sex with a condom is safe; and

"Whereas the Education Act guarantees the right to withdraw from instruction that is in conflict with the religious belief held by a student, guardian or parent,

"We demand that the Ministry of Education immediately prohibit any instruction in the school system that offends against the Criminal Code or conflicts with the personal values and beliefs of most people, including the teaching of homosexuality and homosexual consulting and any homosexual hotline service in the schools or promoted by the schools and the distribution by any person of so-called AIDS education flyers which promote buggery or oral sex."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I have a petition signed by 226 students of Northern Collegiate. It reads as follows:

"We, the graduating students of the Sarnia riding, believe that accessible education is and should be a priority. We believe that large increases in university/college tuition without changes to the Ontario student assistance program creates an élitist education system that only the wealthy can afford.

"Therefore, we demand fiscal responsibility and monetary restraint by the New Democratic Party of Ontario in the development and funding of new and existing programs. We also demand that a universal loan program be initiated to offset the increases in tuition.

"We believe that this will create an egalitarian education system that will benefit this province in all areas of the global market of the future."

GAMBLING

Mr Jean Poirier (Prescott and Russell): I have petitions from 39 members of the Russell United Church and Kenmore United Church petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition that the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos in Ontario."

I've assigned my signature and my support to these petitions.

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling; and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling in individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have, since 1976, on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos to that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before,

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

I support this petition and I have affixed my signature to it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I have a petition signed by a number of people that Bill 164 be withdrawn. I do not support this petition.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, as you know, I've been presenting instalments of a petition which attracted well over 15,000 signatures in support of Bruce A, and I will read it as follows:

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

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective. Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

This is supported in addition by chambers of commerce, business associations, labour groups, riding associations, school boards and other groups of people. I affix my signature.

GAMBLING

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition which is signed by members of the Central United Church in Unionville.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Christian is called to love of neighbour, which includes a concern for the general wellbeing of society; and

"Whereas there is a direct link between the higher availability of legalized gambling and the incidence of addictive gambling (Macdonald and Macdonald, Pathological Gambling: The Problem, Treatment and Outcome, Canadian Foundation on Compulsive Gambling); and

"Whereas the damage of addiction to gambling on individuals is compounded by the damage done to families, both emotionally and economically; and

"Whereas the gambling market is already saturated with various kinds of government-operated lotteries; and

"Whereas large-scale gambling activity invariably attracts criminal activity; and

"Whereas the citizens of Detroit have since 1976 on three occasions voted down the introduction of casinos into that city, each time with a larger majority than the time before;

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

"That the government of Ontario cease all moves to establish gambling casinos."

It is signed by David Reeve, the minister, and a large number of the community. I am pleased to affix my signature as well.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have two petitions opposing casino gambling. One with four names on it is from St David's United Church in Woodstock. The other one has 18 names from people in the Embro area, Lakeside area, Harrington and St Marys. I submit them.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I have affixed my signature to that petition.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 441, employed at Leeds-Grenville Phased Housing Programs Inc in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I have affixed my signature in support of this petition.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I have a petition.

"Whereas we feel the Canada-US trade deal has done immeasurable damage to the economy of the province of Ontario, causing a loss of more than 45,000 jobs in Ontario alone; and

"Whereas we feel the proposed North American free trade agreement will have an even more devastating effect on Ontario, resulting in the loss of not only more jobs but also a reduction in our environmental standards, our labour standards, our workers' rights and our overall quality of life;

"We petition the Legislature of Ontario to fight this free trade deal with whatever means possible and we petition the House of Commons in Ottawa to stop this deal now. We ask that this petition be presented before the Ontario Legislature and forwarded at our behalf for presentation in Ottawa."

This is signed by members of the Lambton county agricultural community.

1520

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): As you know, there are some more than 15,000 people who have signed a petition in support of Bruce A, and this is another instalment in this petition. Basically, the reasons that they are supporting it read as follows:

"In comparison to other forms of generation, nuclear energy is environmentally safe and cost-effective.

Rehabilitating Bruce A units is expected to achieve $2 billion in savings to the corporation over the station's lifetime. This power is needed for the province's future prosperity.

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province."

The signatures to this petition's instalment are from Kincardine, Port Elgin, Sauble Beach and Hamilton. I have affixed my signature in support.

SENIORS' HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"We, the members of the Merry Kin Seniors' Club and the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, are opposed to changes in our health plan that would introduce user fees for seniors' drug needs."

LANDFILL

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have several petitions from a number of people involved in real estate who have written and asked that I present the following petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the government eliminate landfill sites in York region and redirect tax dollars into research for waste management alternatives that will not turn land into garbage."

This is signed by several hundred realtors in York region.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 441, employed with the Brockville and Area Community Living Association in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The Ontario government must immediately reset its course to build an Ontario society which is fair and just, protecting those who are most vulnerable within it, and not scapegoat public sector workers in times of economic difficulty.

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector and the strengthening of public services."

I have affixed my signature in support.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Again I rise to present an instalment of the petition in favour of the maintenance of the functioning of Bruce A units:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider that the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons," and then it goes on to enunciate that they are economically viable, that they'll save $2 billion, that there is an environmental safety attached to them and that a partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the province and the community surrounding.

The signatures are from the Port Elgin area, Southampton, and I have attached my signature in support.

PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): Again I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the following undersigned citizens of Leeds and Grenville, members of Ontario Public Service Employees Union, Local 440, employed with the Ministry of Finance assessment office in Brockville, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Further, the government must respect these fundamental principles: free collective bargaining, a strong public sector, and the strengthening of public services."

Again I sign my name in support.

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Over 15,000 people have signed a petition with respect to the future viability of Bruce A. This is another instalment in that petition and it is addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"When discussing the future of Bruce A, to consider the undersigned are in full support of the continued operation of all of the units at Bruce A. Furthermore, we support the expenditure of the required money to rehabilitate the Bruce A units for the following reasons:

"A partial or complete closure of Bruce A will have severe negative impacts on the affected workers and will seriously undermine the economy of the surrounding communities and the province.

"In addition to the undersigned, this petition is further endorsed by the following municipal, business and labour groups:

"Councils: Bruce township, Huron township, Kincardine, Kincardine township, Owen Sound city, Port Elgin, Ripley, Saugeen, Tiverton;

"Chambers of commerce: Kincardine, Port Elgin and Southampton;

"Business associations: Kincardine BIA, Port Elgin downtown BIA, Bruce County Realtors Association;

"Labour groups" -- labour groups support this -- "CUPE 1000, the Society; Grey/Bruce District Labour Council; Ontario Nurses' Association, Kincardine and Southampton; Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Association, District 44; Service Employees' International Union, Kincardine and Southampton; Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 527; Electricians Local 1788; Sheet Metal Workers Local 473; Ironworkers Local 736; Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local 1120" --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. Would the member for Bruce complete his petition. I appreciate that it's always interesting to know who has signed a petition. However, this is not necessary at the presentation of petitions.

Mr Elston: It isn't necessary, except to explain, Mr Speaker, to the province of Ontario that not only are the 15,000 people who have attached their signatures to this petition in support, but these following groups. A large number of labour organizations in the province of Ontario are endorsing and in fact encouraging people to sign the petition. That is here stated. I am at liberty to read that, and I will just conclude very quickly, if I'm not interrupted too much more.

"Hotel and Restaurant Workers Local 75; Bricklayers Local 12; Allied Trades Council, representing Carpenters Local 2222; Cement Masons Local 598; Labourers Local 1059; Insulators Local 95; Millwrights Local 1592; Operating Engineers Local 793; Painters Local 1590; Teamsters Local 230;

"Riding associations of the NDP in Bruce, the Liberal association, the Progressive Conservative association."

I have affixed my name in support of this petition, along with the signatories who hail from Tiverton, Port Elgin, Mildmay, Walkerton and Ripley.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's fourth report.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the member wish to make a statement on the report she has just presented to the House?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): No, Mr Speaker. Thank you. I have no comment on that report.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills with amendments:

Bill Pr69, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa

Bill Pr77, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill

Bill Pr87, An Act respecting the Township of Aldborough and the Village of Rodney.

Your committee recommends that Bill Pr81, An Act respecting the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa, be not reported.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

On motion by Mr Pouliot, the following bill was introduced for first reading:

Bill 47, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of the Administration of Justice / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne l'administration de la justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Interjections: No.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1531 to 1536.

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

We will now proceed with the vote on Mr Pouliot's motion. All those in favour of Mr Pouliot's motion will rise one at a time and be identified by the Clerk. All those in favour?

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Laughren, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Marchese, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), North, O'Connor, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind all members that it's very difficult for the clerks at the table to hear what's going on with such a high level of noise.

All those opposed, please rise and be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Henderson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, Miclash, Morin, Murdoch (Grey), Murphy, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sola, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays, 33.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 57; the nays are 33. I declare the motion carried. Does the Minister of Transportation have some opening remarks?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Thank you, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West on a point of order.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Mr Speaker, on a point of order in reference to section 38: I'd like to read under 38(a) where it states:

"Every bill shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill, no notice being required.

"(b) The motion for introduction and first reading shall be decided without amendment or debate, but in the case of a public bill, the mover may make a brief explanation of its purposes."

And my point of order:

"(c) On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

My critic has not received anything from the government. This clearly is a government bill. The rules state, 38(c), that "a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics." My critic knows nothing of the details of this bill. After the vote has taken place, the minister responsible is going to stand up and give us an explanation, after we've already voted on it?

My Speaker, I would ask you to rule that the vote is out of order and that the introduction of the bill is out of order.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: It would appear to be quite clear that this bill is out of order and the whole vote's out of order.

The Acting Speaker: I believe the honourable minister has, at this point in time, some information for the critics and an explanation. Will we now proceed with the explanation?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before we proceed any further, I should inform the House and you, Mr Speaker, in respect to the questions that have been raised, that the information they're requiring had been delivered to the staff of both caucuses before the minister got to his feet. That material is available to the critics in question.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. We're wasting valuable time. On the same point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, it's your very difficult job, from time to time, to make rulings based on the words that are in this book, but also based on certain commonsense traditions that have taken place.

It would seem to me that if the rulings call for a compendium of information to be presented to the critics, then it means just that. It did not say "to their staff somewhere around in the back." How would they even know who their staff was, for goodness' sake? It says "to their critics." On top of that, by implication, under section 38(a), it says, "Every bill," which I presume would mean public or government bill, "shall be introduced upon a motion for leave for introduction and first reading, specifying the title of the bill, no notice being required."

Now, they introduce the bill. The motion is called for first reading. The voice vote took place. We called for a division. A vote takes place. Now the minister is saying he's prepared to deliver a compendium of information to the staff of the critics or that it's already been delivered.

This is totally out of order. It is a breach of our privilege as opposition members. It forced us to vote on a bill without the data being available to our critic. The vote is out of order, the introduction of the bill is out of order and this minister is out of order.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London North, on the same point?

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, we had a five-minute bell before the vote was called. We did not receive the information during the bell or before the bell. We did not know what we were voting for. We asked the Clerk for the information. We were not given the information by the Clerk. The reason we have this rule is so that we can get the information. The orders of this House do not allow the Clerk to tell me what was in the bill, Mr Speaker. I think this is out of order and you should be ruling it as such.

The Acting Speaker: It's the Chair's understanding that the bill as presented meets the requirements, and if indeed members within the Legislature want this to be changed, we'll have to address it in the standing orders. We now proceed --

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, same point of order?

Mr Mahoney: The same point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand what you've just said. In essence, I think you've said that our point of order is not a point of order. That's what I hear you saying. Now, maybe you can help me, sir. Did you --

The Acting Speaker: I have mentioned that you have a valid point of order, which has been addressed, and the bill is in order.

Mr Mahoney: Well, Mr Speaker, my question to you, sir -- perhaps you'll have to seek some guidance on this from the staff within the Speaker's office, but the word "shall" is not very confusing to me. The word "shall" simply says that on the introduction of a government bill -- when you called for introduction of bills, the minister stood up and introduced a bill. The standing order says, "On the introduction of a government bill." I would presume that would be at the time the minister introduces the bill. I don't know how else you determine the words "On the introduction of a government bill" to mean anything other than that. Then it goes on to say "a compendium of background information shall be delivered." Not should be, not might be, not maybe it will be: "shall be delivered."

So I don't understand, Mr Speaker, how you can rule that this process is in order, when the minister stood up to introduce the bill, no compendium of information was delivered, when the standing orders -- you say we have to address it through the standing orders. With due respect, sir, it is addressed in the standing orders. It clearly says that on the introduction of the bill, a compendium "shall be delivered." I don't understand, Mr Speaker, how you can possibly rule that the introduction of this bill is in order or that the vote was in order. Would you please help me?

The Acting Speaker: On the same point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Mr Speaker, let me be very clear on my point of order. This is a very practical situation that just took place.

When you asked for bills to be introduced in the House, the minister stood up. He stood up to introduce the bill that he had in his hand. We did not have the compendium notes on this side of the House; the Liberal Party did not have the compendium notes.

I refer back to the standing orders. They've been completely and clearly enunciated by the member from Mississauga West.

From a practical point of view, I asked the minister very clearly, as did a number of people on this side of the House: What is this bill regarding? What is the content of this bill? What does this bill in fact say?

Now, Mr Speaker, I want your attention, sir.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I will not listen much longer to this point of order. We have addressed it and we must proceed.

Mr Stockwell: No, Mr Speaker, from a practical point of view, very practical, the question was put to the minister: What is this bill regarding? The minister refused to answer. I asked other members on the other side of the House and the other members refused to answer. From a practical point, I appeal to you in the chair. We did not have compendium notes on this side of the House. The minister wouldn't tell us what the bill was regarding. How then can you expect us on this side of the House to make a responsible vote when no one tells us what is entailed in the legislation the minister is speaking about? It's not fair nor reasonable.

1550

The Acting Speaker: The Minister of Natural Resources for, I hope, a very short comment on --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Environment and Energy, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Environment and Energy; I stand corrected.

Hon Mr Wildman: Just two points, very quickly. It seems to me that the member from Mississauga West raised a point legitimately that you listened to and you ruled upon. It was also pointed out that the material that is being called for was delivered to the opposition House leaders this morning at 9:30. Now, there are two points. If the members continue to raise points, it seems to me, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon Mr Wildman: It seems to me that if the members continue to raise points, they have to make clear whether they are indeed attempting to challenge the Chair, which I believe to be out of order.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Parkdale, very short.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): Let me just indicate that the member for Mississauga West obviously has a very important point to make, and that is that we need the compendium to this legislation. There's no doubt about that.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, I did not hear you make a ruling to this effect, and I would think that, because this issue is very clear, unless we get some good indication from the Chair, I see you have no other choice but to adjourn the House until we have a ruling from you, Chair.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: I've heard just about as much as I can handle.

Mr Mahoney: Are you telling me you won't hear a point of order?

The Acting Speaker: We will hear a point of order. We're still dealing with the first point of order. The government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, the members opposite are attempting to move the clock past 4 of the clock so that the debate that is scheduled for this afternoon can't occur because it's time-limited by the standing orders to two hours. I just want to inform the members opposite under their point of order that it will be a different order that gets called and it will be their time that is lost in this stupidity.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: The same point of order?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. If it's a new point of order, we have to proceed with the motion that we have dealt with, which, in the understanding of this Deputy Chair, is in order. The compendium is now available. The minister is about to explain after a vote on first reading.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have a point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A point of privilege, the member for Mississauga South.

Mr Mahoney: You won't hear my point of order?

Mrs Marland: Mr Speaker, my point of privilege is that I'm elected to represent almost 100,000 people in this House. I am not able to do that when legislation is tabled and then the vote is called. I have been put in a very difficult position this afternoon, and now I am being threatened by the government House leader that he in fact will change the rules in order that we proceed this afternoon.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: As the critic for the Conservative Party for transportation matters, I can assure you unequivocally that the compendium was not delivered to me, as the standing orders require. I checked with my office while this debate has been going on, and that was not done. It is very clear from these House rules that we have no alternative but to find this out of order. It was not delivered to the opposition critics. Therefore, Mr Speaker, I would propose that you have no alternative but to find it out of order.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Same point of order?

Mr Mahoney: Are you addressing me, Mr Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Mr Speaker, I'm attempting to make my points of order based on the wording, and there's some wording I have not shared with you, which I'd like to do, if I might.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Put it in a memo.

Mr Mahoney: I will put it in a memo, if you like. I don't have a problem with that. I believe we should follow the rules; they were drafted for the members of this House to follow and obey.

The last part, under "Compendium and consolidation," of section 38(c) -- the first part I read to you, where it says: "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

What I did not read to you, sir, is the following: "If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends an act amended previously in the session."

Again my point is, sir, that we don't know what this is. This bill is simply called out, introduced. Our critics have not been given anything. We don't know if it is an amending bill as referred to in section 38(c). We don't know if this is an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts. We don't know that, because nothing was delivered.

It goes on to say that the "up-to-date consolidation," if indeed that's what it is, "of the act or acts to be amended" -- again the word very explicitly is "shall" -- "shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

We have confirmation from the Conservative critic that he has not received such a compendium, as in my first point of order. I'm assuming he has not received anything with regard to an up-to-date consolidation of the acts or acts. I am told by the staff out here that our critic has not received either of those documents.

Mr Speaker, my point of order is that we should simply throw out section 38(c) if the government can stand up, read out the name of a bill, you call for a voice vote, we call for a division, we have a vote, we lose the vote, and then you allow the minister to stand up and tell us what it is we just voted on. What kind of democratic process is this? What kind of process is this in following the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly?

The House leader opposite has said it's not his problem. He says he delivered something to our House leader. The rules say they "shall be delivered to the opposition critics." The House leader says it's our job. The rules say it's his job.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. There are many ways a bill can be introduced. It was introduced very legitimately, and if members do not like the way it was done, we must address the standing orders within the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. The minister has presented his motion; it is in order. The Minister of Transportation.

Mr Eves: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: The government House leader and several government members have made mention of the fact that the compendium was delivered to my office and to Mr Elston's office at 9:30 this morning. I want to stand here and inform you and them, sir, that nothing of the sort happened. I have checked with both of my offices, I have checked with my executive assistant, I have checked with Mr Elston's executive assistant, and that is totally an untrue, false statement and I would like it corrected.

The purpose, for your information, sir, with all due respect, why the rule is there, is so that members on this side of the House can find out what they're supposed to be voting on before they're required to vote. I don't think that you can file a compendium 10 minutes later, 10 hours later, 10 days later or 10 years later and correct the process. With all due respect, sir, it's out of order. The bill wasn't properly introduced and the whole thing's a sham.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: You will know that it is a rare occasion when members vote against a bill on its introduction, on first reading. You will know that in this Parliament --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Sullivan: -- that has happened perhaps on one occasion, and that was with respect to a bill dealing with Ontario Hydro and the government's new rules associated with the operation of Ontario Hydro.

1600

In that case, the vote which was taken, and with the opposition voting against first reading, was done with full information. Members knew and understood the content of that bill and the implication of that bill because the documentation was received by the critics at the appropriate time and in the appropriate place.

I am reliably informed by staff of our House leader that the compendium and other information associated with the bill that the minister has just introduced were not received. Therefore, we were unable --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Could we have order, please. The Speaker cannot hear the member who has the floor. Order.

Mrs Sullivan: As a result, we were unable to proceed in any kind of an informed way in determining how we would vote on that bill, as we did, by example, with the Hydro bill, which the opposition voted against on first reading, as the government House leader will recall.

Mr Charlton, the government House leader, indicates that it's the same procedure that is followed on the introduction of every bill. I defy Mr Charlton, the government House leader, to indicate how that procedure was followed this time when indeed there was a gap, and the gap was that the documentation did not reach the offices of our House leaders and therefore there was no information on which members could take a decision and base a vote.

On the Hydro bill, we knew what was in the bill in advance because the rules were followed. In this particular circumstance, we did not know what was in the bill because the rules were not followed. Whether it's sloppiness, whether it's an error, whether it's deliberate duplicity or whatever, the information was not provided to caucuses, was not provided to people in the opposition, including the opposition critics, was not provided to the House leader's office, so there could be no discussion among the opposition, and indeed among the government backbenches, about the content of the bill. We heard a title, and that is all the information that we had.

Mr Speaker, you have no choice but to make a ruling that says that this bill was not properly introduced, that the information was not properly provided, and I urge you, sir, to do that.

The Acting Speaker: Again, I repeat, it's the understanding of this deputy Speaker that all of the rules of this House have been met. If indeed this is not meeting the needs and requirements of any members here, we should address it in the standing orders.

Point of privilege, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I will have to accept this ruling, as unconscionable as this ruling is. I will have to accept this ruling, but I ask you as the Speaker, and the table clerks, to put this ruling in writing and explain to me and this House how the introduction of this bill was in fact in order, considering the fact it was put before you and placed --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Stockwell: I ask you, as Speaker, to bring forward a written report because, sir, I don't know how you can justify this miscarriage of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The Minister of Transportation, with the information this House needs.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On behalf of those who care about public safety, this bill puts into effect changes to the Highway Traffic Act and the Provincial Offences Act. These changes will accommodate the six-point integrated safety program announced by this government on May 13 last. Amendments to the HTA establish owner liability for speeding offences, which will be enforced through the use of photo radar, an effective tool, indeed, in making our roads safer.

Amendments to the POA establish the first-appearance court on a pilot basis in designated areas of the province. This will save time and simplify the justice process by ensuring that only disputed charges go to trial.

The amendments also include a number of changes needed to carry out day-to-day administrative operations such as electronic recording and filing of documents.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Introduction of bills.

CONSIDERATION OF BILL 4

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I have a point of order which is not related to the discussion that we just had.

I want to make reference to several passages out of the Hansard of one of the standing committees, but I rise under standing order 107(a), "Standing and select committees shall be severally empowered to examine, inquire into and report from time to time on all such matters as may be referred to them by the House," and 107(b), "Except with the House otherwise orders, each committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and things."

Mr Speaker, I will also want to refer to Erskine May and I will come to that in a moment, but I would refer you to the standing committee on social development on Monday, June 7. This is in the rush Hansard, but it is pages 1710-1, 1710-2, 1710-3 and following.

The reason I rise is that I believe the privileges of the members of the committee and, by extension, the members of this Legislature have been infringed. I want to take you to 1710-2 for an exchange between our colleague the member from London North and our colleague the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Education and Training, the member for Sault Ste Marie.

In this exchange on that page, and I would like to quote, Mrs Cunningham, the member from London North, notes that a constituent of the parliamentary assistant had been informed of the committee's hearings and was going to be coming to appear on the Tuesday. I'm now quoting from the record.

"Mrs Cunningham: That's lucky for her. Mine just saw the ad in the paper today. Lucky for her.

"Mr Martin: You knew about this a long time ago, Dianne. You knew about these hearings. You knew that this piece of legislation was coming forward. If you'd been as proactive as I was, you would have had your people here and presenting. You didn't even come up with the --

"Mrs Cunningham: Mr Chairman, can I ask the parliamentary assistant a specific question? Can I therefore, the people I met on Thursday and Friday in my London office, tell them that they can come to these meetings, even though they haven't been scheduled? Is that your direction to me?

"Mr Martin: No, it's not.

"Mrs Cunningham: You said if I had been as proactive as you --

"Mr Martin: Yes. You're too late now.

"Mrs Cunningham: -- that I could get my people here.

"Mr Martin: You're too late now.

"Mrs Cunningham: I'm too late. Too late for who? The government or the democratic process?

"Mr Martin: Too late for the process, Dianne. Yes, this process.

"Mrs Cunningham: Too late for the democratic process as this government sees it..."

Now, in Erskine May, Parliamentary Practice, 21st edition, on page 607, "Reporting of bills before consideration has been completed," I quote, "It is the duty of a standing committee, as of all committees, to give the matters referred to it due and sufficient consideration."

The privileges of the member from London North, of the members of the standing committee on social development and of the members of this Legislature have been infringed because, in point of fact, the government moved to block discussion and debate on Bill 4, which was before the committee, by saying there would not be hearings in the summer and by seeking to regulate what was going to transpire in June.

This is a matter, in this bill, of major issues of importance, which we have said need far more discussion. The parliamentary assistant has simply said that the member from London North and anyone else who had people to bring forward to participate in the discussion were too late. In view of the fact that the government will not allow the committee to properly discuss the bill as Erskine May has set out; in view of the fact that the government House leader has refused to allow sufficient time for that bill to be considered in committee, I believe that under the standing orders and under Erskine May, the privileges of the members of the committee have been infringed and I would ask you to so direct so that we can ensure there will be hearings this summer and so that those who wish to come before the committee to discuss the very important special education provisions that are within that bill, the provisions respecting child care, the provisions respecting junior kindergarten and a whole pot-pourri of other proposals which the government wants to cram through in the month of June -- I believe, Mr Speaker, that you need to direct that we will return to that bill and have hearings in the summer so all those who wish to come before the committee can do so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The member brings forth, I believe, an area that must be looked at. The Speaker will take it under advisement. The matter is presently in committee, I gather. Is this right, the member for York North? The Speaker is advised that the committee presently sitting should be dealing with this matter and at that point, if the committee cannot solve this within its boundaries, then can proceed beyond the committee itself.

1610

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Mr Charlton moved government notice of motion number 6:

That, pursuant to standing order 46 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special order of the House, in relation to Bill 96, An Act to establish the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, the period of time following routine proceedings when Bill 96 is called as the first order of business until 5 pm on that same sessional day, shall be allotted to further consideration of the bill in committee of the whole House. All amendments proposed to be moved to the bill shall be filed with the Clerk of the assembly by 4 pm on the sessional day on which the bill is considered in committee of the whole House. Any divisions required during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill in the committee of the whole House shall be deferred until 5 pm on this sessional day. At 5 pm on this sessional day, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee of the whole House shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto and report the bill to the House. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

That upon receiving the report of the committee of the whole House, the Speaker shall put the question for adoption of the report forthwith, which question shall be decided without debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That the period following routine proceedings of a further sessional day when Bill 96 is called as the first order of business until 5 pm shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At 5 pm on such day, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment. No deferral of any required division shall be permitted.

That in the case of any division relating to any proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Are there some opening remarks?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It's an interesting time to have to move into this debate. I would in fact even suggest to the opposition that we don't require a debate on this motion. They've just very amply conducted that debate for us. They've just provided this House with a perfect example of why the government has been forced to resort to time allocation of legislation. The opposition members in a very deliberate way, in order to ensure that the night sitting motion for next week could not be dealt with today, used up over half an hour on the clock, so that the order which we had agreed we would proceed with today could not proceed.

Yesterday, in my comments on another motion that we debated here, the House leader for the opposition and the House leader for the third party and some of the members of the third party challenged me to talk about total time on legislation and I'd love to do that here this afternoon.

One of the reasons why this House traditionally has worked well is because the House leaders' process in this House has worked well. The House leaders' process in this House has not worked well for the last two and a half years. It has not worked well because the members of the opposition parties have decided that they are going to filibuster every single piece of government legislation.

I made reference to the time consumed on third reading in my comments yesterday. Today, I'd like to talk for a few minutes about total time consumed on legislation during this Parliament versus the very long established traditions of this House. For many years -- we can go back a decade or we can go back two decades -- we had a Parliament here that was turning out on average just over 30 bills a session. That record is now down to about 13 on a consistent basis, session after session, ever since the election in September 1990.

If we look at the actual debate that the members opposite were referring to yesterday, the opposition on a consistent basis, both official opposition and third party, has escalated the time consumed on dealing with a bill from beginning to end by 240% in this Parliament. The opposition, from time to time, likes to talk about this government ruining the traditions of this House, but an escalation of 240% is gamesmanship, it's a destruction of long-standing traditions in this House, and this government is not going to put up with it.

When we get pushed into a corner, when an opposition who, when the bill was being reported back to the House, in this case Bill 96, didn't even think it needed committee of the whole House, to be told a few moments later that it needed committee of the whole and to be told a day later they couldn't tell us how many days committee of the whole would take, that's a process that is unacceptable. It doesn't reflect incompetence on the part of the opposition; it reflects outright obstruction by the opposition in this House.

The House leader for the third party can stand up in this House and do his little red-faced rants, but this government is going to proceed with its legislative agenda. We're going to stay here until that legislative agenda is complete. We will use techniques like time allocation when we have to, when the opposition forces us to, but we will use them to ensure that this agenda is finally completed before we leave this place this summer.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): To begin the debate on the government motion, I would just say to the government House leader, as he leaves the House, that it is the government that's soured the mood here.

I'll use one example, because it's an example that has angered me. Some of the members opposite in the government will recognize why we in the opposition do get angry when we look for an opportunity to debate, seriously debate in this Legislature, and we're denied it.

I will use an example of the capital corporations bill, because it is another example where we've been gagged. I asked the Premier in this House on December 9 if he would bring forward the legislation on the capital corporations. I would say to the people out there who are watching this, this bill, the capital corporations bill, will be dealing with all of the debt of the province, $80 billion of debt in the province. It will be dealing with all of the capital spent in the province. The budget is predicated on this bill.

We knew it would be that way and we asked the Premier back in December -- I'll quote from the question I asked. I said to the Premier, "The reason I'm asking this question" -- and I was asking the government to bring forward legislation quickly. I said, "If you put the budget together on the basis of these capital corporations before anyone here in the Legislature has had an opportunity to discuss how they're going to plan these capital corporations, I think the budget may well be prepared on a basis on which we've had no discussion." And very seriously I said, "Bring forward that legislation," so we would have a chance to look at it and see how reasonable it is.

1620

I said: "Will you undertake, Premier, to send to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, when it's doing its pre-budget hearings" -- and that was back in January and February and March as we were trying to provide advice to the government on the budget -- "your proposals for these capital corporations, so they can form part of the pre-budget process and we can have some idea of whether they're workable or not and how they may in fact function?"

The Premier, I thought at that time, gave an undertaking that they would try and bring this legislation forward early.

I went on to say to the Premier, "The reason I raised it is the reason I indicated earlier, that in many respects, by the time the Legislature comes back the concrete is beginning to harden on the budget," and "One of the things we're most anxious to ensure is that the people of Ontario have a full and accurate account of the finances."

I went on to try and get the government to bring forward that legislation, and what happened? Well, the budget, as you recall, was presented on May 19th. Late one afternoon here -- and this may not matter for those who don't understand the proceedings around here, it may not seem important, but late one afternoon, less than two days before the budget was presented, the Minister of Finance got up.

There was no statement in the House -- and this, by the way, was in the middle of May. It wasn't in January or February or March or April or early May, when we could have had a chance to look at the bills. You may recall, some of you, because you may have been here, that the Minister of Finance got up, no ministerial statement, and merely presented those two bills. Then he was not here the next day, and the budget was presented the following day.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Is this all related to the motion?

Mr Phillips: The reason I go through all of this is that -- and there we have the parliamentary assistant carping away over there, Mr Speaker, rather than listening to why members opposite, members in the opposition, find it so offensive the way the government is doing business. The reason is, we requested this months ago.

The government, in my opinion, had an opportunity to bring it forward, dropped it literally without notice two days before the budget was presented, we've had virtually no opportunity to discuss it, and I will tell you that the whole fiscal position of the government is predicated on the way that capital is proposed in these capital corporations. In our opinion, the deficit is misstated because of the way that the capital is accounted for.

I'll give you one little example. It used to be in this province every single year the province gave about $600 million a year in grants, capital grants, to school boards, to hospitals, to colleges and universities. The members can go back and look at budgets for at least the last six or seven years and that was the case.

This budget did something with what they call in the budget "loan-based finances," and I think most people who read the budget were surprised when they heard this "loan-based finances." Actually, it sounds rather reasonable. It says here, "In 1993-94 these institutions will receive more than $600 million in capital loans, instead of capital grants." So I think what most people out there thought was, "Well, the province is going from giving grants, $600 million in grants, to loaning school boards $600 million."

Well, it actually is exactly the opposite. What is happening is school boards have got to go out and borrow the $600 million and loan it to the province. So it's exactly the opposite of what the budget would indicate in a reading of it.

The reason I'm going through all of this is that I think particularly the government backbenchers may wonder why the opposition get in the kind of moods we get into, and I think we've seen this afternoon a fairly angry opposition. It's for reasons like this, where we were, I think, trying to be helpful in the budget process, saying: "Listen, I understand you're going to bring forward these brand-new capital corporations, I understand you're planning to do something totally different. Let us see the legislation early enough and let us have a debate around it to see whether it's reasonable."

But here we are. The budget was literally to bed. It was printed when the legislation was dropped late one afternoon, no opportunity for debate. We've now had, I think, one day of debate in the Legislature but the budget's done. It's all printed and out there, predicated on some very fundamental new ways of looking at capital.

I raise that because what we see this afternoon is the House leader accusing the opposition of trying to thwart their program, and I would say that it is the opposite. When we try to be helpful, what do we get for it? We get, in my opinion, a questionable approach by the government in terms of giving the opposition an opportunity to debate issues, the one we're debating now and the one that the government wants to impose closure on. There's no other word for it; it is closure.

It was, I guess, less than a year ago when we in the Legislature had these new rules imposed on us. People out in the public may remember that we went on into July last year. We had debates around these rules. The reason we had debates around the rules was for the very reason we're seeing this afternoon. We are going to see debate terminated now. No debate on this bill called OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act, and I will say and I will point out why this bill also is fundamental to the future of Ontario, and we have some very significant reservations about it.

I think people out there deserve an opportunity to have a thorough debate. As a matter of fact, I think in many respects the direction this bill heads in is totally inconsistent with the words the government has used, the new way it wants to think about education in the province of Ontario. I think it's fundamentally inconsistent. I think it's a mistake.

But here we are now, as I read the government's motion -- at one time we had an opportunity to have a debate on something called committee of the whole. For those people who may not be familiar with it, it is a way here in the Legislature where a bill can be debated in some detail. When you're at the stage such as third reading, there's less opportunity for that back-and-forth and input by interested members in the Legislature. We at one time had that opportunity. This motion will eliminate that.

I think this is a bill that touches literally everyone. There will be no opportunity here in the Legislature for the members to have an opportunity for input into it. I would say I would think many government members might want to have a say on this bill. I hope all of you have studied it.

It changes fundamentally the way we are going to have lifelong learning done in this province. It turns over to a completely independent arm's-length agency the responsibility for all the workplace training, the responsibility for literacy training, the responsibility for labour adjustment, the responsibility for much of the lifelong learning skills, and the government says the budget initially will be around $600 million. In my opinion, as we move to integrate federal and provincial programs, the budget's going to be much more like $2 billion.

But we're not going to have a chance to debate that here in the House. This motion eliminates the debate in committee of the whole and it will allow us a very limited debate for perhaps an hour before we deal with what we call here third reading, which is the final part of the bill. I can't, I guess, stress enough the importance of bills that cut off debate such as this bill will here. There are alternatives.

The House, as you know, Mr Speaker, was supposed to come back toward the middle of March. The government decided: "No, no, we're not going to come back then. We'll come back in the middle of April. We'll delay the House coming back for four weeks." Well, we thought that was dumb. We thought the House should have been back. Particularly when we saw the economic problem this province is facing, we felt we should have been back in March. We in the opposition said that. We said it very publicly.

1630

I know the government frankly doesn't like to be here. I think they would all acknowledge that. It's not a particularly pleasant place to be for them. They face, every day, the questions from the public. They have to answer questions. I think it's useful for the government to be held accountable. But it's not a particularly pleasant experience for them. We will see them doing whatever they can to be here as seldom as they can. That's why the House didn't come back until --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): You're going to have a surprise this summer.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Housing said we'll have a surprise this summer. I hope we will. It is fully our intention to go well into the summer. We think there are a number of very significant debates that have to be held, not the least of which, I might say -- and the Minister of Housing is over there having a good little chuckle -- is that we want to be here to talk about unemployment.

I mention unemployment because with regard to the bill that is being cut off here, I think most people out in the workplace -- the unions, the employee groups, the employers -- would say that what is fundamental to our future economic success is our ability to have a skilled, trained workforce. It's absolutely essential, and that's what this bill is all about. But it is flawed, it's fundamentally flawed, and that's why we need to have a significant debate.

The Minister of Housing was having a good laugh about us being here in the summer. We will be here in the summer. We are looking forward to it. We are looking forward, particularly, to debating the unemployment situation. I'm glad that she had a little chuckle over there because it gave me an opportunity to raise something that is very troubling to me. I'm not sure that we've all yet internalized it. I mention these numbers because this bill is theoretically attempting to deal with it.

What has happened with the employment situation in Ontario -- and I'm one who's never said this is all Bob Rae's fault. I've never said that. Publicly, I've always said one cannot blame Bob Rae for all of this. It is not credible to think it's all Bob Rae's fault. I do think that the fiscal situation and the way the NDP has run the province have frankly been close to a disaster. I know the government members may not like to hear that, but I see just too few signs of hope and too many signs of despair out there.

When the NDP came in, Ontario had far and away the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Now four provinces have better unemployment rates than Ontario. I remember your first budget. You predicted that by now the unemployment rate would begin to improve dramatically, that the unemployment rate would be below 9%.

Premier Bob Rae is always fond of saying: "It's free trade and it's this and it's that. Don't blame us." Free trade came in years ago. When you prepared your budgets, you knew free trade was there. You surely must have predicted the economic outlook on the basis of what you knew then, and so you predicted. You told the people of Ontario two years ago -- remember that? -- that you had the solution to the recession. You had a unique solution to the recession. You were going to spend your way out of the recession. Do you remember that?

It has been a dismal failure. I think even -- if you could ever say it; I know politically it's difficult to say -- many of you, if not all of you, would acknowledge that was a fundamental mistake, a fundamental mistake. Now we're all paying for it, because you let the tap run when everyone else said, "Listen, we need restraint." The word "restraint" never appeared in your first budget. It was a unique proposal to spend your way out of the recession.

My point is that Bob Rae promised the people of Ontario -- he knew there was free trade, he knew the world situation, he knew all of these things, but he promised the people of Ontario that he had the plans that would get unemployment down and employment up, that would work our way out of our economic problems, and it hasn't worked. Last year, again they promised that the unemployment situation now would be improving, and it's not.

The budget, as I've said other times -- the most damning page in the budget for me is page 45. What it says on page 45 is this. Here's the key line: "However, renewed employment growth will encourage their return to the labour force. If these discouraged workers were counted as 'unemployed,' Ontario's current unemployment rate would be about 14%." Those are the facts. We have a 14% unemployment rate in the province of Ontario, as the budget points out. "One out of every three unemployed workers in Ontario has been jobless for more than six months. The problem of long-term unemployment is likely to persist over the medium term."

They have a chart here that shows the real unemployment rate, 1993, at 14% and by 1996, it is still at 12%. That is a disgrace, it's unacceptable, it is something we can't live with, yet it's just assumed in the budget that this is the Ontario of today and of tomorrow. I would say to all of us, there is a fundamental change when we go through literally --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, one, two, three, four, five, six members of the government are here. I don't believe we have a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Phillips: What we were talking about was dealing with the unemployment rate, because trying to get the economy going again, one of the keys -- and I am totally supportive of it -- is finding better ways of helping improve the skills in the workplace. OTAB is fundamentally flawed in that respect. One of the members opposite asked me what was the unemployment rate in 1988 or 1989, I think it was.

The reason I raise this point of my concern is that we have never gone through a period of time when the unemployment rate has been so high for so long. What I think all of us have to begin to internalize and think about is that we have a totally different situation. We have literally hundreds of thousands of people, talented, anxious to work, looking for work, who have no hope of finding work.

Interjections.

Mr Phillips: The member opposite asked me what were the unemployment numbers. I'll just go through them for the members here. I'll just run through them, because it demonstrates the difference: 1981, 6.6%; 9.7% in 1982 -- that was the recession; 10.3; then it begins to drop: nine, eight, seven, six, five, five. In 1989, it was 5% -- this is from your government document -- in 1990, 6.3. Then we start to run into the problems. In 1991, 9.6%, and then, as the budget points out, 14%, not getting below 12% even in 1996. You can go back decades and you will find no period in time when we have gone through literally five and six years of unemployment rates of 10%, 11%, 12%, 13%, 14%.

1640

Interjection: And to be maintained.

Mr Phillips: That's right. My colleague says, "And to be maintained."

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Tell us when free trade started.

Mr Phillips: The member opposite is saying, "Tell us when free trade started." I'll make two points on that. One is that free trade has been national, and Ontario in 1989, in 1990, had the lowest rate of unemployment in the country. Everybody had free trade at the same time, but now we find British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba with substantially lower rates of unemployment than Ontario. New Brunswick, and we think of the Maritimes as having chronic challenges with unemployment, and that's been the case; there have been times when New Brunswick's unemployment rate has been better than Ontario's in the last 12 months.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: As the member across barracks, I would say that the government itself has pointed out the horrendous problem. The most amazing thing to me is that I can't imagine why the NDP backbenchers aren't up and down the backs of the cabinet on this. I can't imagine why. I can't imagine one single labour person in this province who finds it acceptable to predict unemployment rates by 1996 running at 12%. It is a disgrace. I've no idea why the back bench isn't all over the cabinet. I think our fiscal problems are challenging, but the real issue for the people out there is unemployment and jobs, and it is a tragic, tragic problem.

Furthermore, as I say, it is unique. In previous times we've seen unemployment get up to 10%, but then it begins to improve, and those people who are talented, want to work, get a sense of hope and can find a job. There's no question that we're going to find literally hundreds of thousands of people who are talented but won't be able to find a job.

So what's the solution here? This is where I get to OTAB, which is the bill we are being cut off from debating. Here's the problem with OTAB. Fundamentally, I believe that education truly is a lifelong experience. I think it truly needs to be, to use today's jargon, seamless.

I am convinced that we are in an era of constant change. I know that sounds like a cliché, but not many of us have really internalized that. We use the term, "We're into a period of restructuring," as if it has an end to it, and there is no end to restructuring now. We make a mistake when we think this is a phase that we'll go through and then we'll structure and then we'll be fine. We are now into constant change.

That's a very unsettling thing for most of us, because most of us need stability in our life. That's why for many, a lifelong job has provided enormous stability. We're going to see less and less of that. I happen to think we're going to have to find other vehicles to help provide community stability, because job stability, just by the very nature of the pace of change, is going to be less frequent.

But my point is that on the education and training side of things, we do need it to be absolutely seamless. If you are a 30-year-old person in the workplace and, for whatever reason, your job has disappeared, you should have a seamless opportunity to get back into a form of education and then back into the workplace.

The problem with OTAB -- and I feel like I'm always speaking to the government backbenchers, because the cabinet, I think, tends to have its mind made up. I would challenge the backbench members to look at the governance of OTAB. This is the fundamental issue with OTAB and why we need a debate.

OTAB, for those of you who are watching, will have a 22-person board. These 22 people will not be selected by the government. They won't be selected by the government. The minister raises her eyebrows, but they won't be selected by the government. They won't be selected by the public. They are going to be appointed by interest groups. Interest groups are part of the public, but I don't believe the business community -- I believe the business community speaks for the business community and I understand that, but it doesn't speak for the whole public.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You were Minister of Labour. Did you change the structure of the compensation board?

Mr Phillips: There's another member barracking, because they don't like to hear a sensible debate; they can't stand it.

This board will not be a public board. There will be a series of special interest groups that will make the appointments. Special interest groups understandably speak for themselves; I understand that. But something as fundamental as all the workplace training, all the skill development, all literacy programs, all the workplace adjustment programs, all the training programs, all the apprenticeship programs, will not be in the public's hands.

Mr Perruzza: Is that what you did with the compensation board?

Mr Phillips: He's barracking again. They will not be in the public's hands. Twenty-two people appointed by special interest groups will rule it; not even appointed by the Legislature but by special interest groups. Those 22 people speak for a part of the public, but they don't speak for the public.

Mr North: Identify some of the groups.

Mr Phillips: The member says, "Identify them." I said the business community. The business community will appoint eight people on that board. The business community speaks for the business and that's fine, but it doesn't speak for the whole public.

So we're making a huge mistake. This is going to be what's called a schedule 4 agency. It's an independent, arm's-length agency. It'll make its own decisions. It's like the Workers' Compensation Board. Oftentimes the question is asked here of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Labour will get up and say: "I'm sorry, but the workers' compensation is an independent agency that runs its own affairs. Sorry, I can't do anything about it."

Something as fundamental as all of the things I've talked about, which are absolutely at the centre of our future economy, will be in the hands of 22 people, not even selected by the public but selected and appointed by special interest groups.

Look at what the special interest groups have said. They've said: "We're going to have to caucus our position. We're going to have to take our caucused position to the table. We're going to have to ensure that the position we take at the OTAB table reflects" --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If this government's going to move closure, the least it could do is keep a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: A quorum now is present. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt can continue his debate.

1650

Mr Phillips: For the people who are viewing this, they should realize that what we're dealing with is a bill that will end up with an agency that will have responsibility for a budget of about $600 million, going to $2 billion. They will have all of the workplace training, all of the skills development, all of the what's called worker adjustment programs. It will be central, all of the apprenticeship programs, all of the things we talk about as we talk about helping develop the skills for the future. Those responsibilities will rest with this board.

I go back to saying, who will make those decisions? Firstly, it is clear in the legislation that it won't be the public making the decisions. It will be this independent, arm's-length body with 22 people and the groups. There are eight from the business community, eight from the labour community, one from the racial minority community, one from the women's community, one from the disabled community, one from the francophone community, one from colleges and universities and one from elementary-secondary. Each of them has a constituency. There's no doubt about that. But the collection of that 22 doesn't represent the collection of the public.

I say to the members that if you look at how those groups are talking about working on this Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, they no doubt view it as a great opportunity, because they all are going to caucus their position and take it to the table. This body of 22 people will be trying to get the agenda of their organizations done.

But I would say to you that if you believe that the collection of those groups represents Ontario, all of Ontario, all of the people, I think you're wrong. The business community represents the business community -- and great -- but there's an awful lot more out there who aren't represented on the board.

Furthermore, as we're trying to develop this -- I use the expression "seamless" -- so that we break down these barriers between elementary and secondary, secondary and the colleges, colleges and the universities, the workplace and the places of learning, surely the whole purpose of what we're trying to do is to take advantage of scarce resources and make them so interchangeable that we eliminate waste, we eliminate bureaucracy.

But now, just as we're trying to do those sorts of things, we're setting up a whole new, brand-new bureaucracy with, in my opinion, no accountability. As we will be doing in the House in the future, we'll say, "How is it that our industries are not finding the skill levels they need?" The answer will be, "I'm sorry, but that's OTAB's problem." If we want to change OTAB, we change legislation.

The members may say, "We have a memorandum of understanding." I was the Minister of Labour. I know the relationship between the Workers' Compensation Board and the Ministry of Labour. There is a memorandum of understanding that essentially says, "Keep your nose out of Workers' Compensation because it's an independent, arm's-length agency." That's what the memorandum says, and that's what the OTAB legislation calls for.

What's happening with OTAB is that the objectives are right. All of us salute and applaud the need to improve skills development. All of us applaud the need to get partnerships working better together. All of us applaud the need to eliminate duplication. There can be no question.

By the way, there are all sorts of duplication in programs out there that we have to fix. But in the interest of doing all the things that are strategically right, the mechanism we've chosen will be seen in the future as a fundamental mistake.

I come back to why we're spending time today debating this motion: because it is an illustration of how we are being cut off from an important debate. The reason the committee moved it here, for what's called the legislative committee, for what's called a debate in committee of the whole -- and I mention these things because maybe people who are watching may not be familiar with the terminology. But committee of the whole is an opportunity for all the members in the Legislature to participate in a debate around a bill and get into some comment and some discussion on it.

This motion today eliminates any of that debate, just terminates it completely, and then it eliminates virtually any debate at third reading. I think it's important for the public to appreciate what's happening.

As I said earlier, the government, for whatever reason, came back three weeks late, almost four weeks late. Had they come back on time, we would have had almost a month more of debate. This particular bill, I think, requires the kind of airing that we'd hoped to see at committee of the whole. This isn't a minor bill.

As a matter of fact, interestingly enough, when the Premier was asked to rate his best accomplishment in his first year, what do you think it was? OTAB. That indicates how important they view this, but they won't allow a significant, meaningful debate on it. He says this is the most important thing. He says this is crucial to our economy. He says that this is something that he views as his most important accomplishment, but he won't allow debate here on the bill.

I know it doesn't seem important to the cabinet, because it just wants to get it through and get out of here. It may not seem important to the government back bench, for whatever reason. I don't know why it isn't, because if I were you, I would be all over the cabinet on many of the things that are happening. I would be all over the cabinet on how you could ever live with, as the budget itself says, a 1993 unemployment rate of 14%. I have no idea how you would allow a budget to go through with a passing comment, "The unemployment rate will be 14% in this province in 1993," and not be all over the cabinet.

I know when we went out talking on the budget that the labour movement, I think, finds it particularly galling to have to defend the government where the unemployment rates are at that level. I don't think there's any labour leader in this province who ever thought he would have to defend a budget, as I say, with 14% unemployment; three years from now, 1996, at 12%, and yet they are put in the position of having to defend it.

As I say, on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, do you really think that the groups that are now going to be responsible for managing this board without -- the government, the public, will not even have a chance to choose them. They will be chosen by their constituents. Those are important constituents, and I don't want to underestimate that. I don't want the business community to get mad when I say that they don't represent all the public, and I don't want the labour movement to get mad when I say they don't represent all the public either. But there are more than just the eight groups that are represented on OTAB. Eight groups are represented on OTAB; there's more to Ontario than just them.

There's all the young people. Where's their voice?

Mr North: Analyse the unemployment in the province. Tell us why it is our fault.

Mr Phillips: The member across, I think he said, "Tell us what you would do." I know exactly what we would do. This is very simple. You make this an advisory board, but in the final analysis, these decisions should rest with the public. The member shakes his head, but I believe that. I just don't believe that the public wants to turn over or should turn over to an independent agency, with special-interest groups as important as they are there -- and if you look at how they're going to approach OTAB, they view it as taking their agenda there. They're going to have to caucus it and they're going to have to work on it. I'm afraid what we're going to find in about two years is that the thing will have bogged down, that there will be so many arguments around agendas and not enough debate around how we are going to solve the problems.

1700

I'll use the Workplace Health and Safety Agency as an example. For those of you who may not be familiar with it, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has a similar format. It is a schedule 4 agency. It's an independent one. In this particular case, the Workplace Health and Safety Agency has two sides: labour and management. They are there representing their constituencies. It's not working on something as important as health and safety.

On that one I have some experience. It was as a result of a bill that I brought in. I didn't bring it in, it was the previous minister, but I was the Minister of Labour. There was a worry that we had on that one. That's why we put in an independent chair. We said, "At least, we'll have an independent chair there." But the agency, for whatever reason, got rid of the independent chair and now we've seen just an enormous friction between the two parties. Rather than its being a productive relationship, my fear is that it has become a non-productive relationship.

The reason I raise that is that, as people often say, "If you don't understand the past, you're bound to repeat the mistakes of the past." We're bound to repeat a mistake and we can see it coming.

The solution is not that difficult. The solution in this particular case is comparatively easy, but for whatever reason the government wants to force this through and stop the debate. The government House leader threw out a bunch of threats, "We'll get you if you don't agree to these sorts of things," and soured the relationship -- not particularly helpful. People don't respond well to threats, but if he wants to threaten us, that's fine.

But I use the example again of the sorts of things that we in the opposition are trying to do to be helpful. I used the example at the start of my remarks of one bill that I'm involved in, called the capital corporations act. I begged the government to bring it forward six months ago so we could have a legitimate debate. What happened? It was dumped on that table quietly, less than 48 hours before the budget. I'll tell you the magnitude of that particular bill. It will handle all of the borrowing for the province, $80 billion, which, by the way, is going to be turned over to an independent, schedule 4, arm's length agency.

The government seems to love these things. I have some suspicions why. All the money for it is going to be borrowed by the school boards. If there is one group out there that is having difficulty right now, it is our municipal partners, because they've been hit with the expenditure control program and the social contract. Then they got hit with all the taxes. Yet what are we going to do? We're going to make them go out and borrow another $600 million a year for the province. It's amazing.

Mr Owens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm interested in the member's comments with respect to capital corps. This is not the issue under discussion. I wish the member to get back to the point under debate.

Mr Phillips: The reason I raise this is because the House leader, in introducing this motion, got all agitated and animated and accused the opposition of not being helpful. That was the motive for introducing it: "We have to get on with the business. The opposition isn't being helpful."

The reason I raise the capital corporations is as but one example where the opposition said six months ago: "For heaven's sake, bring us the legislation. Allow us the debate. Give us the time to debate." I think deliberately, totally deliberately, those bills were dropped on this table less than two days before the budget. We've had virtually no time to debate them, and that's why, when the public wonders why we're having a debate about this, it is because in our opinion the government is trying to ram its legislation through and not give the public an opportunity for legitimate debate.

On this particular bill, this OTAB bill, I am letting the public know how important it is, because every single person out there who is out of work, this is going to be the agency that will be doing the training. Every single person in the future who may be laid off, this is the agency that will be doing the workplace adjustment, all of the apprenticeship programs, $2 billion -- in my opinion, $2 billion worth of expenditures, and it will be controlled by special-interest groups, albeit well-meaning special-interest groups, albeit important special- interest groups. But I add up the special-interest groups and, in total, they don't speak for the people of Ontario. They speak for an important part of the people of Ontario but not all of Ontario.

As I move to conclusion, the members opposite and the public -- I think the public understand now why we feel the way we do about this motion. The intent of the motion is to stop debate. The intent of the motion is to not allow the public to have a full airing of this bill. It is what Premier Rae called his most important accomplishment, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and yet, for his most important accomplishment, the opposition does not get an opportunity to have legitimate debate on it.

Mr Stockwell: We're at this stage in today's business because it's some kind of punishment levelled out by the House leader for the government side. This punishment was because this official opposition party had the nerve to ask this government to adhere to the rules of debate in this House. I want to speak to that issue just briefly at the start of my comments.

It's rather clear in the rules of debate in this House that when introducing a bill, certain rules must be followed. They're not complicated rules. They're not difficult rules. They're not onerous rules. They're rules that allow the opposition parties an opportunity to understand and read what the government is planning to put forward on that day's agenda, and when introducing the bills, it gives the government members and the opposition members time to review what introduction is being made by the minister on that day.

Now, if you go to the rules and procedures, the standing orders, you'll note on page 32, number 38, section (c): "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics." It's very clearly "shall." It's not "may." It's not "might." It's not "We will if we get it off the photocopier in time." It's "shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

"If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends an act amended previously in the session." That doesn't apply. So the very simple fact is that if the members opposite would take the time to read the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, they would see on page 32, section 38(c), "On the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics."

The Minister of Transportation stood in this House and announced he was introducing a bill on transportation and traffic. We in the opposition benches had absolutely no idea what bill was being introduced. None. I put it to you, Mr Speaker: absolutely no idea. Now, the House leader on the government side stood up and tried to offer some kind of pale excuse that he delivered them to the House leaders of the two opposition parties at 9:30 this morning, which was in fact a lie, did not happen, did not take place. Then he tried to suggest that the compendium to the bill was in fact delivered to the caucuses previous to the bill being read, which was again untrue, not factual.

1710

So we in opposition were left in the unenviable position of asking the minister of the crown what bill he was introducing. I will say right now, I asked the minister five or six times, once he had read the title of that piece of legislation, "What exactly are you introducing?" The minister didn't answer. He had not delivered the compendium notes. The House leader for the government side didn't deliver the compendium notes at 9:30 in the morning, which he alleges he did, and of course we know now he didn't. Then we simply asked the minister, "Could you please just tell us what you're introducing?" and he ignored us.

We divided on the vote because we wanted to know what we were voting on. At no time had we received the compendium notes. We stood in this House and voted against the legislation that was being introduced for first reading simply because we didn't know what was being introduced. Then, after a five-minute bell, after the vote had been taken, the compendium notes suddenly appeared on our side of this House.

We're now suffering the rage of the mighty House leader for the government side; mighty, I might add, in his own mind. He says, "If you don't cooperate, I'm going to change the orders of the day and move closure on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board," as some kind of punishment, as some kind of penalty to the opposition, because they had the nerve to ask what they were supposed to be voting on. That's why we're here today, because the opposition had the nerve to ask the government what bill was being introduced and what we were voting on at that point in time.

It's just unbelievable that this government, which wants to get a social contract with 950,000 of the broader public sector, can't even deliver compendium notes on time. So now we're suffering for this pique of anger suffered by the House leader for the government side.

I say to you in the chair, Mr Speaker, I have absolutely no idea how the ruling came down the way it came down. I have no idea how the ruling was made from the Chair that suggested the bill was in fact in order. It was never in order. We never received the compendium notes, and it says, as I said earlier, on page 32, "38(c) On the introduction of a government bill" -- which this was -- "a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics." "Shall."

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): Are you still on that?

Mr Stockwell: I find it quite important.

Well, the minister introduced the bill. We didn't have the compendium notes before he introduced the bill. We had a five-minute bell and we still didn't have the compendium notes. We had a vote and we still didn't have the compendium notes. So we're here today because they can't do their job, a simple job, I might add, a simple task.

Mr Klopp: It's for a simple Tory party.

Mr Stockwell: The member from Huron's babbling over on that side. He doesn't clearly understand the issue so he'll babble incessantly. I'll have to put up with it.

A simple task that I thought even the simplest of governments could do. Well, I overestimated them. Hard to believe that you could do it, but I actually overestimated this crowd. I figured they could even deliver compendium notes on time, and they couldn't even do that.

But what adds insult to injury -- I'm on the motion; we're on this motion today; you can check Hansard -- because the House leader for the government side stood up and said, "Unless you people opposite straighten up and do as I tell you, I'm going to move closure on OTAB." So I'm on agenda here. I'm on the issue. Why are we on OTAB? Because apparently we weren't prepared to vote on an issue that we didn't have compendium notes for or knew anything about. That's why we're here debating OTAB and closure on OTAB.

To add, as I was saying, insult to injury, this minister -- let me just outline this for you. We didn't have the compendium notes, he read the legislation into the record, and I asked him five or six times, "What is that bill?" and he ignored me. I shouted across: "What is the bill you're reading? Is that the speeding photo bill, about photographing licence plates for speeding tickets?" He ignored me. During the five-minute bell, two of our members crossed the floor and asked him point-blank, "Is this the bill you're introducing?" He didn't answer.

So what position were we left in, except to stand on a point of order and rule that the bill is in fact out of order? And we got the most insane, absurd ruling from the Chair that said in fact it was in order because the House leader stood up and made up some concocted story that he delivered them at 9:30 in the morning. Unless he knows about the secret passages that the ex-House leader knew about, there isn't a way he delivered them at 9:30. No House leader's office received them, and now we're faced with this situation today.

It may make the opposite members somewhat restless, but those are the facts. They didn't receive the compendium notes at 9:30. We didn't receive the compendium notes till after the vote. It may be uncomfortable, I might add, for them, but you're incompetent. You can't even deliver compendium notes, let alone get a social contract, let alone run a province, let alone balance a budget. You can't even perform the simplest of chores: delivering compendium notes, the simplest of chores.

We had a long harangue, we went past 4 of the clock, and this is the punishment. The government House leader's punishment is, "Well, I'll move closure on OTAB." Now we have closure on OTAB. This is a practice that this government is becoming rather expert at. There are two practices they're becoming expert at: alienating anybody who has ever had any intention of ever voting for them and bringing in closure motions.

Now we have a closure motion on maybe one of the most important pieces of legislation that this government has staked a claim on: the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board. By moving this closure motion, we as the third party will not be given the opportunity to move many of our amendments that I have in my hand, many of the amendments that are practical, reasonable and acceptable to the public outside of this place.

Considering the fact we don't have a committee of the whole, as I'm sure they'll take away that opportunity, and considering the fact that we don't have an opportunity on third reading to debate this, there's nothing left for us to do than simply argue our points during closure.

Mr Perruzza: Hey, Chris, how long are you going to speak for? How long?

Mr Stockwell: The cackling from Downsview continues. I'm most interested to find out if he got his Toronto Blue Jays signs up. He still hasn't told us, but we'll find out. Certainly, the burning issue in that NDP caucus is Toronto Blue Jays signs as you enter Metropolitan Toronto.

But I think the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board is fairly important myself, too. It's something that I'm sure this member doesn't think, because otherwise he wouldn't be supporting this government's action in moving closure on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board one day, and the very day before, moving closure on the insurance bill.

But this was the government of the little people. This was the government of the underdog. This is the government of closure; professionals on closure. Closure is all we get from this government. If debate goes too long, becomes too intensive, if amendments are too difficult: closure. "If you don't do as we tell you, if we break the rules and you have the nerve to suggest we broke them," move closure. "If you don't like the way we introduce bills because you don't know anything about them and we're asking you to vote on something you haven't read," move closure. And after it's all done, have the House leader stand up in a pique of frustration, suggesting, "If you don't hurry up, I'm going to move closure." Petulance from an incompetent government trying to run this House by incompetent means.

1720

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Do we like Dave Cooke.

Mr Stockwell: That's the thing that is hard to believe, I say to the member in the Liberal Party.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I wouldn't be House leader if I was paid to be.

Mr Stockwell: You were paid to be House leader, Mr Cooke.

So in a pique of anger, we now move closure on OTAB, this structural linchpin in this party's plan to put the people of the province of Ontario back to work, the linchpin, that has taken how long to get through this Legislature with little or any debate? How long? How long has it taken to get it through this Legislature with little or any debate? Closure on third reading.

You know, they can't deliver compendium notes, they can't get legislation through, they can't keep their party members in line on votes, their House leader's moving closure, and it's all the fault of the opposition parties. It's time this government looked in the mirror and accepted some responsibility.

Again we see today, with the Premier making his announcement on the social contract, the incompetence of this government, the thorough and absolutely incompetent way it's running this province. They're suggesting that they have a three-legged stool. Their announcement so far is a one-legged stool. The leg is taxing the taxpayers $2 billion.

Mr Speaker, I think we should have a quorum if we're going to debate this issue.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is there a quorum in the House?

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: Mr Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: Well, third call for quorum. They move closure; they can't keep quorum. They want to debate OTAB; they can't keep quorum. They move closure on the insurance bill; they can't keep quorum.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I see you have a tremendous amount of support.

Mr Stockwell: I've got a tremendous amount, sir, a tremendous amount. You know, when I go out on the road to speak to the public, there's a tremendous amount of support for this party out there. When I looked at the last polls at Don Mills and St George-St David, I saw the kind of support your party had: 8%. You're a frivolous party, you're frivolous. You're a third party; you're fourth. You're irrelevant. I've seen higher standings by parties that were patched together in a couple of weeks, so don't talk to me about support. There's no support for your party out there. If we had any way of impeaching you people, the public would be doing it right now. Don't tell me about support. You can't even count to 20 to keep a quorum in here. Support: I get a laugh about that. You can't even keep the support of your union representatives at GM. "Checkoff" used to mean money to you people; now all it is, is a character on Star Trek.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't think it was bad.

So we move into the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Give him a glass of water.

Mr Stockwell: I won't respond to the member from Durham, because he's offering me a glass of water, unlike many other occasions.

Mr Wiseman: I've offered you many things, but water's the only thing you've taken.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, that's true.

Amendments, amendments that we wanted to put to OTAB, very reasonable amendments, amendments that the public was asking us to present, amendments that won't now see the light of day because in a pique of anger the House leader for the government side decides that he doesn't like the way this place is operating. He doesn't like our attitude, so he moves closure on OTAB.

We wanted to move that there shall be 27 directors appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council as follows:

-- Nine directors representing business, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector and three the construction sector.

-- Nine directors representing labour, three of whom shall represent the industrial sector, three the service sector, three the construction sector.

-- Five directors representing educators and trainers, one of whom shall represent school boards, community colleges, universities, private sector trainers and one community-based trainer.

-- One director representing francophones, one representing persons with disabilities, one representing racial minorities and one representing women.

We consider that to be a reasonable amendment. The amendment expands the board of directors to 27 seats to ensure that business, labour and education and social groups are fairly represented.

That was a reasonable amendment. It's an amendment that I think should see the light of day. It's an amendment the public should probably see a vote taken on, but no, we won't see that amendment. Why? Because in a pique of anger the House leader decides he doesn't like how this is going so he moves closure on the linchpin to building this province back to prosperity.

Although not specified in the legislation, the government has indicated that the Ontario Federation of Labour will be given seven of the eight labour seats on OTAB. The building trades council will be given the eighth seat. Perfect buyoff; no doubt about it. We wanted to debate that in this amendment, because you tried to buy off labour: You tried to buy off labour with Bill 40; you tried to buy off labour with OTAB. What have you found out? You can't buy them off. They sold you down the river on the social contract. You couldn't get a deal. You thought you could cosy up to them and they would allow you to reopen the contracts and strip them and roll back wages. You couldn't get a deal.

So now we go through this harangue today by your leader, who's rudderless, seeking any direction in hopes of saving $2 billion. We're going to be halfway through the fiscal year, two thirds of the way through the municipal year, and you've come up with another concocted plan that hasn't got, in my opinion, a prayer of succeeding unless you reopen the contracts and strip back the wages, and I don't think the unions are going to buy into that.

I'll look forward to that day when I can look across the floor and see Mr Owens from Scarborough Centre voting to reopen contracts, something no Liberal or Tory government has done, something this government will be very proud of, I'm sure: reopening collective agreements and clawing back negotiated settlements. I'll be very interested to see that day this good union man, this man who has negotiated contracts --

Mr Owens: What about Tory pension clawbacks?

Mr Stockwell: I don't want to hear your heckling; I want to see how you vote.

Mr Owens: At least I have beliefs.

Mr Stockwell: I want to see how you vote. I want to see how close you hold to your heart the beliefs of the labour social movement, because I think you're going to be bought off, bought off by an MPP's salary and as chairman of caucus. I think that's all it takes to buy you off and that you'll vote to reopen contracts and roll back wages.

I want to be here when that happens, because I recall vividly a number of these people, when in opposition, mouthing the wonderful words, talking about the fairness of collective agreements, the fact that they can't be attacked, collective agreements that are agreed to by management and unions.

I'll be here that day when this union man stands up and votes to reopen those collective agreements and roll back wages. I'll be here that day. It will be an interesting day, because anything you've stood for will be flushed down the toilet. It won't be worth anything, because you'll have just gone against every principle you ever stood for, collective agreements, union-negotiated collective agreements that you'll reopen and strip away.

That will be the final day and the death-knell for this government because every union in this province will find it as abhorrent as you would have found it had you not been elected and bought off on an MPP's salary.

I move on about the labour situation in OTAB. We won't get a chance to introduce that bill.

Mr David Winninger (London South): Sold any cars lately?

Mr Stockwell: Excuse me?

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): He wants to know how the car business is going.

Mr Stockwell: He asks me if I've sold any cars lately. There's an interjection from the brilliant member from London.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair is trying to be as patient as possible. I would just ask that you speak on the motion itself, please. Please do.

1730

Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Speaker. So, the member for London, I'll fill you in later if you want. I can't imagine why that would be of any great interest to you, but I'm certain there are a lot of things that I can't believe are of great interest to you. I'll move on to this --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: And here's the member from Durham. I've got to have a lot of respect. This guy keeps coming back. It's great, and I'll leave him alone this time because I'm charitable today.

We wanted to move an amendment to OTAB. It said, "In the selection of directors representing labour, the importance of reflecting the proportions of Ontario's labour force that work in organized and unorganized workplaces shall be recognized."

You see, 65% of the workers in this province don't belong to a union. They're happily employed outside the union ranks. Maybe Mr Owens will be one of them after the next election. But these people are happily employed outside of the ranks and they don't want to belong to unions. They don't like unions. They don't think unions represent them. But according to this amendment, what we're trying to do is ensure that organized labour does not dominate the labour representation on the board.

Now, you see, this is a very important amendment. This amendment speaks for 65% of the people out there who work in this province -- who are left working in this province after this debacle of a government. So we wanted to move this amendment, but, no, we don't get a chance, because in a pique of anger the House leader decides he's moving closure on OTAB as well as insurance, because they can't get their compendium notes delivered on time. That's why we're debating this today and that's why 65% of the people in this province, who are working hard for their money, paying hard-earned taxes, have no voice on OTAB, because they don't get the payoffs; only organized labour gets the payoffs, and if they want to get on OTAB, it's implicit in this legislation that you'd better organize. The biggest union after the next election will be the union of ex-NDP MPPs. They'll organize and get involved in OTAB. That'll be the biggest adjustment that will have to be made after the election.

So here we have it. Here we have this government suggesting that it represents the broader public in the province of Ontario, yet you don't allow 65% of the people who work in this public access to the board that makes decisions on training and education. Is that fair and equitable? I say not, and the 65% of the people who don't get a chance to sit on this board say not as well; that it's dogmatic, socialist pap.

Mr Wiseman: How would you pick? How many would be on the board if you put all 65% of the population on the board?

Mr Stockwell: The member says, "How would you pick?" Well, how would you pick? The member from Durham suggests to me how I would pick who would be on the board. Well, I'll answer the question. It's very simple. You get a broad cross-section of the public --

Mr Winninger: Of Tories.

Mr Stockwell: And here's the member from London chiming in again in his --

The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you, please, to refrain from asking questions. This is not the time for you to ask questions. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor. Only he has the floor. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I think it's important to ask questions about this, but they've closed; they've moved closure. I think it's important that you too should have an opportunity to ask some questions on this bill, but now that's removed because in a pique of anger your House leader decides he doesn't want to do it because he can't deliver his compendium notes on time. It's a shame you can't get those simple questions answered, because as simple members, you should get some simple questions answered, and it's a shame.

The point made is that 65% of the unorganized labour force out there is unrepresented. Organized labour will have a major role in shaping the province's future training programs, as they've been allocated eight seats on the board. The Ontario Federation of Labour has been allocated seven seats, while the Ontario Building and Construction Trades Council has one seat.

To make this point, you asked the Christian Labour Association of Canada and they stated -- and it's a very fair and reasonable comment. I ask the members opposite to listen. They said, "The real concern for all of us should be, can the OFL and the building trade council, in view of their philosophy and track record, be expected to act evenhandedly and in the best interests of approximately 65% of Ontario workers, who do not want to belong to these organizations' affiliated unions? Peeling away the rhetoric about a new era in labour relations, broad consultations, public involvement, cooperation and partnership, what is there on the public record that reassures us these labour representatives indeed can put self-interest aside and have progressive ideas about what it might take for the province to remain as efficient, productive and competitive as it can be in a global economic environment?"

That's a fair question. That's a fair comment. That's a question that should be answered. That's an amendment that should be voted on. But no, we can't vote on that now, because you didn't deliver the compendium notes on time. That's why we can't vote on this. That's a fair question, put to this government by 65% of the workers in this province, 65%, and they don't answer.

Mr North: Who are represented on the board.

Mr Stockwell: Who are not represented on the board. Not represented on the board. And if you consider the broader public sector, the broader public out there, to be represented on this board, to be done through business, it's simply not the case. Business is the business groups, or the disabled, or women, or visible minorities. No, they don't represent the public; they're interest groups. They're special interest groups. Of course they are. If they weren't, they wouldn't be on the board. Of course they are. Anyone who suggests otherwise is living in a dream world. They're not the broader public section; that's not the cross-section of the public. Those are special interest groups put on by you, the government, while 65% of nonunionized labour out there has no say. That's reasonable? That's fair? That's unbelievable.

I'm still waiting -- I want to hear the member from Scarborough Centre when he strips away the rights, the collective agreements, when he rolls back wages. I want to see him dangle his union card in front of his friends out front when he votes that way, for an MPP's salary and a chairman of caucus. That will be a real interesting day. That will be a good day. You should be proud of yourself when you do that. Come Monday, you should be proud of yourself for everything you've stood for when you do that. That will be a red-letter day in your household, I'm sure, when you can stand up and say: "I'm quashing unions in the province of Ontario. I'm stripping away rights. I'm reopening collective agreements. I've forgotten anything I stood for, because when I got this job, I sold my soul." That's what he's doing. "I sold it, for an MPP's salary and a chair of caucus."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, you either bring him back to his senses or bring him in line.

The Deputy Speaker: Please. You don't have the floor.

Mr Stockwell: There are many union representatives over there who I think will have a very interesting time on Monday when the legislation is introduced. I look across and I see the member from Sarnia; he'll have a real interesting time voting on that piece of legislation, and of course the member from Scarborough, and of course the teachers' union, the member from Durham. He'll have a great delight in reopening the contracts and rolling back the wages on the teachers, considering what you stood for in the past. But it's probably less of a problem for you, since you've agreed to put a dump in your own backyard and you got elected on the fact you wouldn't put a dump in your own backyard. So I look across at all these people and it's of great interest that they'll have to in fact vote to reopen contracts, claw back wages, negotiated settlements.

The third amendment that I wanted to speak to today was a reasonable amendment put forward by our critic, Ms Cunningham, who would have been here today to debate this, although it wasn't on the order paper, but she's out speaking to a group of young people about OTAB at this very moment.

Mr Winninger: Who is your choice for leader?

Mr Wiseman: He's not going.

Mr Stockwell: But they now have moved the agenda around, so it didn't give our critic an opportunity.

Mr Perruzza: He doesn't want the Tories to get re-elected. That's right. I had heard that too. He doesn't want them to get re-elected because he's afraid it's going to bring him down.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview. The member for Etobicoke West, I would ask you to address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I am doing my best. They missed lunch, I guess.

Mr Owens: Speaking of being out to lunch.

1740

Mr Stockwell: There goes the member from Scarborough, who will probably vote to strip away rights, collective agreements that you negotiated that you're going to take back from your brothers and sisters. Let's talk about that. What a proud day it will be --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Owens: The member is being provocative.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Scarborough Centre.

Mr Stockwell: They can't keep a quorum. They heckle to the point of having to sit down. They can't keep a quorum. They move closure two days in a row on two very important pieces of legislation. This government is not only incompetent -- well, completely incompetent; they don't even have the courtesy to allow us the short time we have to debate an important piece of legislation like OTAB.

Mr Perruzza: Why do you do this then?

Mr Stockwell: Here they go again. Again, it's the member from Downsview and the member from Scarborough, Steve Owens, continuing on in this barracking that's taking place. I wish they'd listen up, because these are really important amendments that we're putting forward, amendments that should have been --

Mr Owens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member has cited my name as barracking and making other inappropriate noises. Just to let Mr Stockwell --

The Deputy Speaker: This is not a point of order. It's not a point of order. Please address the Chair, the member for Etobicoke West, and try to ignore the interjections.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'm doing my best.

Another amendment that we wanted to put that now won't be put, because in a pique of anger the House leader --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: He's acting like a mouse now. It's play time in the NDP caucus.

Now we have Ms Cunningham's amendment, which won't be heard, as I said, because in a pique of anger -- they couldn't deliver the compendium notes on time -- they get upset, so they move closure.

In the subsection for quorum, "14 directors, five of whom represent business and five of whom represent labour, are required to constitute a quorum."

"Decision-making

"A decision of the directors requires the approval of 14 directors, five of whom represent business and five of whom represent labour."

We know it's a slanted committee. We know it's a slanted board put in with the eye to union-labour deal-making, and we speak to it, and the people should have an opportunity to see a vote take place on this.

The amendment adds a double-majority voting requirement to Bill 96:

"A proposal before the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board would have to be supported by a majority of both business and labour and a majority of the complete board."

That way you don't have the union, which has a majority, steamrolling over business, steamrolling over this 65% not attending, steamrolling over the members who don't happen to agree with the labour-union doctorate.

But, no, that amendment won't be heard either. Why? Because we're moving closure again, closure by a government that gets upset when they don't follow the rules and we tell them they don't.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Why do we have to listen to this dogmatic drivel?

Mr Stockwell: Well, you know, it's not dogmatic drivel any more, I say to the Minister of Environment and Energy, because it's going to be non-dogmatic come Monday when you vote to reopen all the collective agreements in the province and roll back the wages and strip any gains that they've made. Yes, it won't be dogmatic. You'll have changed your stripes considerably at that point. You'll have outdone Conrad Black. He couldn't even do that. You'll have outdone him. You'll have reopened 9,000 collective agreements, clawed back wages, clawed back benefits, and I think you should be proud of yourselves. I can imagine there will be a party awaiting for you outside this Legislature from all those union reps.

Interjection: Consider it fairminded.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, we would have been more considerate. We would have run this province so well that we wouldn't have had to do that.

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, I see.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, without doubt.

Mr Perruzza: We're still cleaning up your mess. That's how well you ran it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There's only 15 minutes to go. Try to behave as well as you can, and I would ask the member for Etobicoke West to continue and address your remarks to the Chair. Try to ignore the interjection. The member for Downsview will remain quiet; I know he will. So address your remarks to me. Thank you.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, Mr Speaker. If you say he'll remain quiet, I believe you.

We talked about the double majority, something that should have been debated in this Legislature, something that should have been debated so that people could hear about the concerns we have with respect to double majority and the union monopolization of this board and the fact that they're going to ram through left-wing, socialist pap like this Legislature has been subjected to in the last two and a half years. Left-wing, socialist pap: $10-billion deficits that ballooned to $12 billion or $13 billion; $10-billion deficits that have ballooned to $11 billion or $12 billion.

Coming in now is the culprit, the Minister of Transportation -- why we're here today. I'd still like an answer as to why he didn't tell us what bill he was introducing; why he could not have the compendium notes delivered; why, when the compendium notes weren't delivered, we had a five-minute bell and we voted and he still wouldn't tell us what we were voting on. This is the culprit.

The House leader, in a pique of anger, should have turned around and redressed the Minister of Transportation, but he didn't. He sat there, as we went across and asked him what the bill was about and he wouldn't answer. This is the same group that wants to run the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and has a Minister of Transportation who is incapable of delivering compendium notes on time. This government gives the post office a good name.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Maybe they should retrain these guys.

Mr Stockwell: Retrain to deliver compendium notes on time. There could be a course for that. I'm sure they'll think of it. They'll probably hire a lot of their socialist friends to run it and they still wouldn't get it right. The minister can't get his notes delivered on time to the members opposite -- introduces a motion, won't tell them what the motion is.

Shame on you, Mr Minister, shame on you. Because of your petulant attitude, because you wouldn't tell us what the motion was all about, the legislation, your House leader in a pique of anger suggested that we now have to deal with a closure on OTAB because we dealt with closure on the insurance yesterday because we went past 4 o'clock.

Mr Perruzza: You're repetitive.

Mr Stockwell: Of course I am. We're upset.

Mr Perruzza: Of course you should be upset. You don't read your mail.

Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to get down, Mr Speaker, to the next amendment.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: If members would take their seats, perhaps we will have as much -- the two ministers and the member for Elgin, if you want to take your seats, I'll wait for you. Please take your seats. I ask that all members take their seats. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to move the amendment, but you know what also happens when they move closure because of the incompetence in the Minister of Transportation? You know what else happens when they move closure? There's no committee of the whole. There's no chance for questioning. There's no chance for give and take, for all these important issues to be put on the record. There's no chance for that.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Or to convince them that they're wrong.

Mr Stockwell: I don't think you'll ever convince them they're wrong. The only people who'll convince them they're wrong is the electorate when they finish with them in 1995. It'll be a decimated lot sitting on this side of the House of maybe half a dozen that'll realize how badly strayed they were. In fact it's time to take pictures so they can remember each other by them.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): A photo radar shot of the whole gang.

Mr Stockwell: A photo radar shot of the whole gang, exactly. After the next election, you won't need any wide-angle lens to get the entire caucus in the same picture, I might add.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): It will be used at random, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: I hear the Minister of Transportation barracking again. I only asked you one question today. Six times you wouldn't answer and you caused this mess because you were incapable of delivering compendium notes on time.

1750

The next section that we dealt with was a comprehensive section that clarified the relationship between OTAB and the local boards. Why we wanted to move this amendment, for my friend from Downsview, was to ensure that the composition and operation of local boards is a local responsibility. That seems reasonable. It seems to me that in your home community you would like the local board to understand the problems in your community, to address the problems in your community, so we wanted a very definitive amendment that clarified the relationship between the local board and OTAB itself. But this won't be put on the agenda. It won't be put on the agenda because of the incompetence of the government in delivering compendium notes.

We have a fistful here. We wanted to strike out section 21 of Ontario Training and Adjustment Board Act. The amendment removes section 21 from the act. There's one reference to funding in the bill. This is very important about funding of this bill.

Section 21 states, "OTAB may charge fees for its services, in the amounts fixed by the regulations made under this act." But there is no definition for what type of fees would be levied. If that's not a blank cheque, what is?

You suggest that you can charge fees, but you're not telling anybody how much the fees are. It would seem reasonable to me that this amendment could be debated in this House, because people are going to have to pay those fees. Before you spend billions of dollars striking a board, maybe you'd better determine whether or not people are prepared to pay the kind of fees you're looking at.

But no, we can't debate that today, because the Minister of Transportation was incompetent and couldn't deliver his compendium notes on time, and in a fit of anger the House leader stood in this House and said, "You're not doing what I want you to do, so I'm going to move closure on OTAB." That's why we can't debate it. That's why 65% of the people in this province won't be represented on this board. That's why they're going to charge fees that they don't know about, that people will have to pay as a hidden tax. That's what we're debating here today. We're debating closure on the basic democratic right of debate, ability to debate a piece of legislation that is as large and controversial and comprehensive as this.

Hundreds of thousands of people in this province have voted for these two opposition parties to come here and debate these bills. You may not like what we have to say on occasion, but it doesn't give you the right to withdraw our opportunity to debate it.

Even the minister doesn't even understand what this debate is. It's closure. You're moving closure. You get it? Closure. I'm supposed to be debating the closure motion. You know? You don't even understand what you have before you.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You're the one who doesn't understand.

Mr Stockwell: Oh, no. Mr Speaker, I'm not even going to listen to the heckling from the Minister of Incompetence/Transportation, who can't even deliver compendium notes on time. I don't trust him to do anything. He's got a simple job like delivering the mail from that side of the House to this side of the House and he can't even get it done on time, and he wants me to listen to his barracking.

This is the dilemma that we face on this side of the House: many amendments, a fistful of amendments, reasonable amendments not accepted by this government because it moved closure.

Bill 96, on motion to be moved -- in committee we wanted to move, by, again, our critic, who is now out speaking to a group of young people about this very piece of legislation and it won't be --

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Why isn't your critic here?

Mr Stockwell: There's another member from Durham. I think he's the one who shared his apartment with the other member in case they got called back in a hurry to save the government. Don't worry, Durham. If they're counting on you to save them, they're out to lunch.

We moved that subsection 30(1) of the bill be amended by striking out clauses (a) and (b). What were (a) and (b)? This is the amendment that removes the regulatory powers associated with quorum and decision-making. The amendment is required if a double majority, voted requirement, amendment passes. It's a compendium motion to our original motion about a double majority.

There's a fistful here that the people won't be able to hear, reasonable amendments. These amendments were put to us by the public in a lot of instances. The public asked us to move these amendments. The public wanted these things debated. The public asked us to put to the government these reasonable amendments, and the government has quashed them. They've ignored them. They will not see the light of day.

Why? Because this was the government: That party in opposition was so opposed to any government that ever moved closure. Now they have the record. More often has this government moved closure than any other government in the history of this province, and in the meantime, it has changed the rules to restrict debate in this place to the shortest period of time possible.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Mulroney did it 21 times in three years.

Mr Stockwell: Again he quotes Mulroney. I guess they don't know the difference between the provincial Legislature and the federal Parliament. I said "in the province of Ontario."

Hon Mr Buchanan: I forgot you're going to get rid of him this weekend.

Mr Stockwell: This man is the Minister of Agriculture and Food and he doesn't know the difference between federal and -- this man's likely to end up in Ottawa voting for Jim Edwards. This is what he's going to be doing this weekend. He is so confused, he's probably going to go to Ottawa and vote for Jim Edwards.

Hon Mr Buchanan: Two more days and he's off your back.

Mr Murdoch: Then who are you going to blame? Then you're going to have to blame yourself. There will be nobody else to blame.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Grey.

Mr Stockwell: There's one thing all the federal Tories can be proud of: In their own party, they're higher in the polls than you are with the general public.

So we have been left with this situation. But you know what is going to be interesting? Although they moved closure on insurance and although they moved closure on OTAB, we still are going to wait for this day on Monday when the Premier, according to his statement -- I like these weasel words he uses. He won't say it. They won't cross his lips, but he's going to do it. They're weasel words. He hasn't got the guts to say it.

Mr Owens: You would know about weasels.

Mr Stockwell: Is that the member from Scarborough who said that, Mr Owens, who's going to vote to reopen collective agreements that you negotiated and roll back wages on your brothers and sisters?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West. We have two minutes to go. Please, let's see if we can maintain order for two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: Here are some weasel words. I note in the Premier's announcement, "compensation savings." What are compensation savings? They're rollbacks. That's when you break open collective agreements and roll back their wages. He calls them "compensation savings." That's a weasel word.

Do you want another weasel word in this outline today? On page 4, he talks about "fail-safe mechanisms." Do you know what fail-safe mechanisms are?

Mr Phillips: Is that the guillotine?

Mr Stockwell: No, that's not it. It's reopening collective agreements. That's fail-safe mechanisms. This is what this party is contemplating: fail-safe mechanisms/reopening contracts, and compensation savings/rollback and wages.

On Monday, we're going to get the legislation by this happy and chortling lot across the floor, and they're going to reopen collective agreements. I'm sure as they reopen them, they may break spontaneously into a round of Solidarity Forever as they strip away their brothers' and sisters' hard-earned collective bargaining gains in the past 20 or 30 years. That is what this government has been reduced to: feeding off itself, eating its young, attacking its own. That's what you've been reduced to.

It's absolutely appalling for the government of this province, a socialist government, an NDP government, to introduce in this Legislature, by its Premier, its leader, the silver spoon socialist, Bob Rae, an act on Monday, a piece of legislation that will introduce opening of all contracts and rollback of wages. If this had been any other government in this province, it would have been peeled off the roof today explaining this, that no government should ever be allowed to reopen collective agreements and roll back wages. Well, Mr Speaker, this --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Charlton has moved government notice of motion number 6. Shall the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

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

Are there any statements? We'll wait for a few minutes.

Interjections.

Order. Any statements?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Mr Speaker, the business of the House will be announced.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1802.

9 juin 1993