role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 18, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROJET D'AIDE FINANCIERE AUX INTERVENANTS

Mr Chiarelli moved second reading of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988.

M. Chiarelli propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 39, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1988 sur le projet d'aide financière aux intervenants.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Chiarelli: On 20 December 1990 I introduced this amendment for first reading and today we are debating it on second reading. Briefly, the Intervenor Funding Project Act, which was enacted in 1988 by this Legislature, provides that in hearings before two boards, the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Energy Board, it is possible for groups in the public interest to apply for intervenor funding.

The purposes of my amendment are as follows, and I will go through them. They are quite brief, but I think very significant. The definition of "board" in

section 1 of the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988 would be repealed and the following substituted:

"'board' means a joint board, the Ontario Energy Board, the Environmental Assessment Board or the Ontario Municipal Board."

What that would do is add to the inclusion of this act the Ontario Municipal Board as an eligible board for which intervenor funding might be awarded.

The second amendment is to change the definition of "proponent" in

section 1. The existing definition would be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

"'proponent' means a party whose undertaking, in the opinion of a funding panel, is the subject matter of the hearing or another party, individual or corporation, who, in the opinion of a funding panel, is potentially a major beneficiary of the decision of the board."

What that amendment would do is expand the definition of "proponent" so that it is not restricted to a group, an individual or a corporation that would receive a financial benefit, so that conceivably it could include as a proponent a municipality or some government agency.

When the Intervenor Funding Project Act was first enacted in 1988, it was voted in with the support of all parties in the Legislature. I might add that this identical amendment which is being proposed today was introduced in the last session by me, was debated in the House, given approval on second reading and referred to committee of the whole.

At that time, I might add, all parties and all speakers voted in favour of my amendments. There was a very broad consensus that the amendments that I was proposing were in fact very useful and ought to become the law of Ontario.

Of course, the second reading approval died on Orders and Notices when the 1990 election was called. I felt strongly enough about this particular issue so that in December 1990, in the current session, I reintroduced the amendments.

I might add that when the original legislation was before the Legislature by the previous government, essentially the same amendments that I proposed in the last session and in fact that are proposed again, were moved by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore who was then the Environment critic and who is now the Minister of the Environment. She spoke very eloquently when the bill was passed in 1988 to add an amendment similar to mine.

In order to put these amendments in context, it is very important that we look at the Ontario Municipal Board and how it operates and functions. The Ontario Municipal Board is a quasi-judicial body which makes very important decisions on quality of life and environmental concerns in the area of planning and development.

The board, as it has developed over the years, has developed rules of evidence as a court, rules of procedure as a court, and in its deliberations it gives the greatest weight in evidence to experts who come before it: expert planners, expert legal counsel, expert environmentalists, expert engineers. It is a very technical and usually very largely financed board in its hearings.

As I mentioned, the types of cases, usually the major cases before it, deal with environmental concerns and quality of life concerns. It deals with major amendments such as official plan amendments. It deals with major development, such as the Red Hill Creek Expressway in Hamilton or the Vanier arterial expressway expansion in Ottawa-Carleton.

Typically, there are three types of parties who come before the Ontario Municipal Board in a given major hearing. First of all, these are municipalities. There will be a major municipality or several municipalities making submissions before the board, and of course municipalities are well funded. They have municipal planners, they retain consultants and they have legal counsel, and they are in a very professional mode when it comes to making submissions before the Ontario Municipal Board.

The second type of person or group that is typically before the Ontario Municipal Board in any given case is a developer or a group of developers who are proponents or who have a very significant financial interest in the determination of the board. Once again, they are well financed. They have legal counsel and they have experts who come before the board because they know that the board will make its decision based on the evidence of experts.

There is a third group that comes before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is usually an umbrella group of community associations and groups that are trying to represent a public interest of one type. Typically this party or group of parties before the Ontario Municipal Board does not have the means to retain expert legal counsel, does not have the financial means to hire the experts and therefore is not on a level playing field. They have a public interest to protect before these hearings.

They are invited as citizens, active participants in the community, to come before the Ontario Municipal Board, yet they do not have the means to put themselves on an equal footing with the interests of the other parties, the municipality or the developers. So the main rationale is that we will have a level playing field created for citizens' groups coming before the Ontario Municipal Board.

I would like to refer to several quotes in support of my amendments. The first one I want to refer to is one from the member for Hamilton Mountain, the Minister of Financial Institutions. He debated this issue when it was last before this House and he supported my amendment in saying:

"The first important reason is that, as we move through a growing era of public concern and public participation in our regulatory processes, we have to begin to understand that, as government and as representatives of the people, we have a responsibility to fund the mechanisms that allow us to ascertain, to the best of our ability, what the real public desire and need is in any circumstance."

I also want to refer to a quote from the late Senator Eugene Forsey. There is no person, I think, better qualified to talk about the democratic process and citizen participation than the late senator, who said, not too long before his death, something I think very significant and profound:

"If things need changing, it is the people, not the politicians, who should change them. If they do not need changing, it is the people, not the politicians, who should decide not to change them." These are very profound words and I think very significant in the present context.

As we know, we have just had a legislative committee on the Constitution spend five weeks criss-crossing this province and we have also had the Spicer commission, which has given us a message that people in Canada and people in this province feel disenfranchised. They feel that they do not have a say in major decisions that governments make on their behalf.

I am nearing the end of my time period. I will speak a little bit later, but I do want to say that by passing this amendment, this Legislature will be sending a message out that we want to enfranchise people, not disenfranchise people.

Mr McLean: I welcome this opportunity to comment briefly on private member's Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. The purpose of this bill is to add the Ontario Municipal Board as a board to which the act applies. The reference to a major financial beneficiary in the definition of "proponent" is broadened to include other areas in addition to financial matters.

The Intervenor Funding Project Act established a three-year pilot project to investigate the use of intervenor funding to give public intervenors easier access to three regulatory tribunals. Those were the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and a joint board appointed under the Consolidated Hearings Act and composed of members from the environmental board and the Ontario Municipal Board.

I have always believed that intervenors contribute important evidence when matters come before the Ontario Municipal Board. Individuals know that the best way to become a part of the process is to organize or join a local citizens' group. This has several advantages. By teaming up with others who have similar concerns, people will have a unified and stronger influence on the decision-making process and people can also pool information and resources to share the work and the decision-making that participation entails.

However, participating in a hearing invariably entails some costs, and it could include money that individuals or community organizations simply do not have at their disposal. Typically, costs might include fees for lawyers, fees for expert assistance, travel and accommodation expenses and costs of materials used for presentations, such as photographs or graphics.

I personally believe in having equal resources available to individual intervenors or intervenor groups, provided they demonstrate they have a clear interest in the case, provided they demonstrate they have attempted to raise funds through other means such as community fund-raising, and provided they demonstrate they have a genuine need for financial assistance. This would greatly enhance the quality of the hearings by giving these people the opportunity to raise and canvass important issues that otherwise might not have emerged.

I had an example in my own riding a few years ago with regard to intervenor funding, and it was really over a landfill site in Tiny township, site 41 as it was called. The municipality opposed it. The citizens from the community opposed it. It was a group of other municipalities that thought that site should be located in this municipality. In cases such as that I believe it is important that intervenor funding be made available to that municipality and to those citizens.

However, I do have some problems in some cases where individuals object to certain aspects of activity that takes place in a community who want to object for their own personal reasons. I think intervenor funding should be made available to those people and to local municipalities that have that important interest in principle.

There are some major concerns with regard to intervenor funding that I have had over the years. Many lawyers and consultants end up with all the money, and the fact is that a person with a lot of common sense could give the same evidence at no cost. There are people in society today who, when they see money coming from government, believe that there is no end to it. So I do have a major concern with regard to extending it to the municipal board on those facts. However, I support the bill in principle. I think there are people, such as the case I had indicated, who do have a major, genuine interest.

I believe there should be a mechanism whereby intervenor funding would be a process that would be simple and easy to determine whether people are going to qualify or not, not a lot of red tape before they would get their decision. As to the major concerns that I have, I have seen it with the Ontario Environment ministry. The Ministry of the Environment has been the major area where these activities have taken place. I think that it should be streamlined. As I said, I support this bill in principle, but the fact is that it has to be right and proper.

Hon Ms Carter: I want to give a different perspective on this. This situation is coming to a sunset conclusion, so that we are going to have to look at an overall replacement, not a piecemeal approach. This in fact is being done by the government, so this is what I want to say: We oppose this initiative because in the circumstances we are going to have to replace our whole approach to this issue. Therefore, we want to do it all at once, comprehensively, and that is how we want to approach it.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, we were going to start using our 15-minute provision. As you are aware, I also have a two-minute wrapup at the end.

The Deputy Speaker: That is fine: the member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: I just wanted to say very briefly that yes, the minister is correct that there is a sunset provision in the legislation. It sunsets in, I believe, March 1992.

The Deputy Speaker: You are not entitled to respond to what she has said. You debate the issue.

Mr Chiarelli: I am debating the issue, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: That is right; okay.

Mr Chiarelli: I am debating the question whether or not it is appropriate to pass this amendment in view of the sunset provision.

The sunset provision indicates that the Intervenor Funding Project Act can be extended by order in council. There is nothing in the legislation itself which says that it should be reviewed. There is nothing the government has indicated at the present time which says that it is being reviewed.

It would be my hope that the members on the government side, in view of the fact that they have voted in favour of this particular provision on two previous occasions, would vote in favour of it now and would also vote in favour of referring it to the standing committee on administration of justice, and that the Attorney General would refer the issue of sunsetting and reviewing the entire operation of the bill to the justice committee so that it can be looked at very comprehensively.

In the meantime, there are significant groups in every part of Ontario which are looking for intervenor funding and which ought to be covered, as the Minister of the Environment said in 1988, under the Ontario Municipal Board auspices for this type of funding.

I would say that if the whip is out on the government side to vote against this particular amendment at this time, I think it would be very hypocritical indeed. In fact, the Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, would well know that the community in Ottawa-Carleton is very animated and very actively lobbying in favour of this amendment. I think it would be really negligent if the member for Ottawa Centre has not been able to convince her cabinet colleagues and her caucus colleagues to support this amendment, which has been supported actively by every umbrella citizens group in Ottawa-Carleton for the last three years.

I am going to give up the floor now so that my colleagues can have some additional time, but I do say to the members on the government side that I really believe they have an obligation, given their previous statements and given the present demand by public interest groups in the province, to support this amendment.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to provide some brief comments about Bill 39. This bill essentially is a bill that adds the Ontario Municipal Board as one of the boards for intervenor funding and in that way amends the Intervenor Funding Project Act,1988.

I think that in principle, when we look at the fact of adding that board to the Intervenor Funding Project Act, I can support this piece of legislation. I can do that because the municipal board does many things which affect the day-to-day lives of the citizens in every community in this province. The municipal board has an effect on housing; it has an effect on municipal infrastructure; it has an effect on the environment; it has an effect on agricultural land; it has an effect on municipal development and on municipal taxation. All of these, and I am sure there are many other items as well, are subjects of Ontario Municipal Board decision-making.

It is important that individuals and ratepayers' groups, people who are not necessarily the most affluent members of a community or the most affluent advocates within a community, have an equal opportunity to present evidence before a municipal board with the use of experts with the proper legal help, because they have to convince essentially a panel of judges.

They also have to have the opportunity to respond to the evidence presented by corporations that have the money -- and by that I mean developers, corporations, private concerns -- to appear with their experts, to appear with their lawyers and to pay with money that is a cost of doing business, which is not money that is taxable; it is deductible money for those corporations. Municipalities present evidence at the municipal board. They pay with taxpayers' money. What about individuals? That is why this bill is an important bill.

However, there is a caveat. There is a part of this bill that I have difficulty accepting, and that is the change in the definition of "proponent." The proposed amendment states that the proponent does not have to be a financial beneficiary, just a major beneficiary. That causes me some concern because it is the proponent who pays for the intervenor funding, and certainly when we are talking about a private concern as opposed to a municipal concern, if that private concern does not have a major financial interest, why should it be paying the costs of the intervenors?

That is certainly in my eyes a caveat and makes it somewhat difficult to support this bill totally, although I do support it in principle.

I would point out, and my time is short, that the Intervenor Funding Project Act is a good act. It provides the necessary protection in

section 7 so that intervenors cannot be involved in a frivolous way within the proceedings of a board. I just want to quote what

section 7 says so that people know what the eligibility is for intervenor funding.

Section 7 of the act says, "Intervenor funding may be awarded only in relation to issues...which, in the opinion of the funding panel," which decides whether the funding will be given, "affects a significant segment of the public; and...which, in the opinion of the funding panel, affects the public interest and not just private interests." So people cannot come to this board and obtain intervenor funding for something that is frivolous.

In addition,

section 7 sets out certain tests as to whether the funding should in fact be available, so you cannot just show up and out of the blue expect to obtain money without meeting, really, a seven-part test. I think the protections are there.

The idea of expanding this bill and the provisions for intervenor funding to the OMB are, in principle, something that I can personally accept. I do have the one caveat dealing with the definition of "proponent."

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate in the debate today, I would like to speak in favour of the motion by the member for Ottawa West, which I believe is very timely, especially considering the comments by the Minister of Energy, who is here in the Legislature this morning.

I would remind the minister, and all colleagues in the House, that this is private members' hour. I was quite surprised to hear during this private members' hour debate that there was a government review of this very important matter of intervenor funding. We have not heard this from the government before. We do not know how this review is being conducted, where it is being conducted and what kind of public input there will be in this review.

I believe her comments speak to why this Legislature should today be supportive of the proposal put forward by the member for Ottawa West, especially if the government is reviewing it, because by sending the member's bill to a committee of the Legislature, the government can have that review with full public debate, full public discussion in an open public forum instead of, as has been the habit of this NDP government, behind closed doors.

Today, for the very first time, we heard that there is a review that has been undertaken and I would urge the members of the NDP caucus who are here in the House today to remember the traditions of their caucus and of their party. They have supported the concept of intervenor funding. They have supported this type of legislation on numerous occasions. Their own Minister of the Environment, in recent times, has supported this legislation. I think it is quite outrageous.

I am sure that the members of the NDP caucus are not going to stand for having a minister stand in the House during private members' hour and dictate to all of them what their position will be, simply because the government is conducting an internal, private, hidden, secret review.

Surely private members' hour means more to the members of the NDP caucus and they will stand up today and support this legislation and this proposal by the member for Ottawa West, which they have supported time and time again in this House whenever there was an opportunity to debate and to discuss the issue of intervenor funding.

I can only say that the legislation and the merits of the legislation are clear. The Minister of Energy stood in her place and acknowledged the need for this kind of legislation and said the government supports the intent of the legislation, but it opposes this private member's initiative because of some secret government study that is taking place behind closed doors.

I say again to the minister, who is in the House today, and to her colleagues on the government benches that by standing in their places in support of this legislation during private members' hour, they will have an important opportunity to send a message to the cabinet and to the government.

The message that they will able to send is that private members' hour is an opportunity for every member of this House to express his or her point of view on important issues of the day, that they will have an opportunity during private members' hour not to be dictated to by the government and not to stand in their places and have to support simply the position that has been suggested to them by a minister in the House during private members' hour.

I expect that we will today see them stand in their places and support the bill of the member for Ottawa West and his fine proposal, and support sending it to committee so that it can have the kind of full public discussion and full public debate and scrutiny that it deserves.

Mr Arnott: I would like to congratulate the member for Ottawa West on his proposal of Bill 39,

An Act to amend the Intervenor Funding Project Act, 1988. I have some limited reservations about the concept of intervenor funding. However, I know that in the past the New Democrats have been very supportive of it and I look forward to seeing the recorded vote.

I know that public interest groups should have an opportunity to apply to become intervenors and receive intervenor funding from time to time, since the principle has been established. I would like to speak about some interesting implications that this bill has for my riding.

Puslinch township in the south of my riding has been involved in a lengthy OMB hearing which finished a few months ago. It took a number of months. The township took the position that it had to defend its official plan against aggregate mining policies that were coming forward. There were a number of applications for aggregate mining in the township that were, in the opinion of the township, running counter to what it wanted to do.

The township has been faced with a legal bill of $243,662.30. For a small municipality, that is a very significant sum of money.

They have recently asked me to assist them in attempting to receive a meeting with the Premier, and I am certainly in the process of doing that. I hope the Premier will in fact meet with the township to discuss his past interest in intervenor funding and his past support of the concept so that we can see if the provincial government will be interested in assisting the township in this way.

Mr McGuinty: It is my pleasure to rise in support of this bill, and it is a particular pleasure because it addresses an ideal I think we all hold, and that is equal access to justice.

I think we should acknowledge that there is at present in Ontario no equal access to justice. There are still many cases where access can only be had at expense, and sometimes at great expense. As a practising lawyer, it became all too familiar to me when I was involved with cases where people with legitimate complaints, cases where people's rights had been breached, simply could not afford to seek legal redress or recourse.

The legal aid system goes some way in addressing or remedying that particular situation, but it only addresses lower-income groups. As a general rule, it is restricted to addressing matters which arise before our courts, and in spite of legal aid, justice is still in many cases realistically denied to those people for whom it would be too expensive, particularly those in the middle-income groups. Legal aid does not address the matter of intervenor funding before administrative tribunals and the bill introduced by the former government attempted to remedy that.

I think it is important to remember that people's rights are affected by administrative tribunals in a very real way, as well. In order to have their rights addressed, in order to make presentations before tribunals, it again costs money and sometimes it costs a great deal of money.

Another feature of some of our administrative tribunals is that they often entertain matters of dispute between parties, as the member for Ottawa West mentioned, of unequal strength, and by "strength," again, we are often referring to financial strength. Financial ability often, unfortunately, enables one to make better preparation in terms of a hearing, to present better evidence, to pay for better expert witnesses.

The Intervenor Funding Project Act went some way in addressing the problem; however, it restricted the remedies to hearings before the Environmental Assessment Board, the Ontario Energy Board and the joint board. The member for Ottawa West's bill addresses this deficiency to some extent by broadening the scope of the intervenor funding to allow it to apply to hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board. The Ontario Municipal Board is notorious for holding hearings in many cases where parties of unequal strength often come to lock horns, and again, we are talking here about one party having much greater financial strength than another party.

I think we should take advantage of the trial period. We should seize the opportunity to inject another element. I do not think any of us should be heard to say that we are going to put a particular group's rights on hold, and that is often the case.

We had a recent case in Ottawa where a legal bill to the tune of $80,000 was presented to Ottawa's New Edinburgh Community Alliance Inc, which presented its case before the Ontario Municipal Board, and it had, because of existing inequalities, no recourse to intervenor funding.

I think as well that we should recognize the presentation prepared in a brief by the Canadian Environmental Law Association, a brief presented to the standing committee on government agencies regarding the Ontario Municipal Board. It was prepared by Richard Lindgren, counsel, and it is dated 7 February 1991. It is a very thoughtful, lengthy brief. I want to quote from it. It indicates at one point:

"Because of its diverse legislative authority, the Ontario Municipal Board plays an important role in shaping the character of Ontario's urban and rural environment. It is noteworthy that there are very limited appeal rights with respect to OMB decisions, and hence the board often functions as the final arbiter of disputes involving matters of considerable public interest.

"The virtual finality of OMB decisions makes it imperative that all relevant evidence, information and opinions are presented fully and effectively before the board. However, there has been increasing concern among environmental law association counsel that certain OMB practices and procedures are undermining public participatory rights and public confidence in the OMB hearing process, especially where environmental issues are involved. In particular, the Canadian Environmental Law Association concerns focus primarily on the following matters:"

It then outlined a list, and at the top of the list, it makes reference to the lack of intervenor funding in OMB cases. I want to quote from it just a bit more. It goes on to provide:

"In a 1988 submission to the Attorney General, the Canadian Environmental Law Association argued that the intervenor funding legislation should apply to the OMB. It is noteworthy that the Honourable Ruth Grier, Minister of the Environment, also supported the extension of the intervenor funding legislation to the OMB. In 1991, CELA's view remains unchanged, and we submit that the Ontario Municipal Board must be brought within the ambit of intervenor funding legislation for a number of reasons."

It then goes on to provide those reasons in a very thoughtful, methodical and emphatic way, many of which have been outlined today by the member for Ottawa West.

I want to second the member for Ottawa West's statements when he made reference to Ottawa-Carleton's hope and support for this bill. I have been approached by a couple of community groups in my riding that are expressing concerns with respect to presenting their cases and the financial problems they are going to encounter for matters appearing before the Ontario Municipal Board.

This is an opportunity, again, that I feel we should seize. We have a grand experiment in motion at the present time. I think we have nothing to lose by injecting another element which in fact goes a long way towards redressing a problem that presents to a great number of people, community groups in particular, who are having difficulty presenting their cases before the Ontario Municipal Board.

Finally, I would like to re-emphasize that what we are talking about here in a very fundamental way is addressing the ideal that we hold, and that is of attaining a particular goal of equal access to justice. This goes a long way towards ensuring that, with respect to matters before the Ontario Municipal Board, the parties will be enabled to present their cases on an equal footing, regardless of their financial capability, regardless of their particular expertise, because they will be able particularly to retain counsel, experts, and proceed on an equal footing.

Mr B. Murdoch: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to talk on this bill. I am opposed to this bill on the ground that I think there is too much intervenor funding now. To give intervenor funding to fight the OMB right now would be a mistake. The OMB is full of cases it cannot even get to, and with more intervenor funding we would have more people going there and at this time it would just be ridiculous for it to happen.

Also, it is piecemeal. I do not think we need to be patching on; we need something to straighten the whole mess out. Intervenor funding has been around for a little while, but not with the OMB, and at this time I do not think it should be there.

We do elect municipalities, and unfortunately what seems to be happening in Ontario is that people are getting little groups all the time and forming their own opinions, rather than listening to the municipalities they elect. If they have problems with some of the decisions municipalities make, the time to show that is in elections. They get the chance then to tell people they are not happy with it. But if we start intervenor funding for the OMB, we are going to have people complaining about porches and just down to anything they do not like.

One of my colleagues talked about frivolous objections. Well, there do not seem to be any frivolous objections any more in this House. The OMB seems to accept every objection and it goes to the OMB and this why it is in problems. As I say, it is backed up for over a year now to get a case on and, if we start intervenor funding, there will be problems.

Mr Silipo: I rise to speak briefly in support of this bill. I think it has probably become known that it is my attitude in private members' hour to start off by basically being supportive of initiatives that come forward from individual members unless there is something in the proposed law or resolution that I find completely unacceptable.

In this case, while I may share some of the reservations that have been mentioned by other speakers, I find that the concept that is in the bill of expanding the application of the Intervenor Funding Project Act to include the OMB is a worthwhile pursuit. Any step forward made to try to expand, in effect, the access to tribunals and indeed through that the principle of access to justice I think is worth while supporting.

There may be very good reasons why there are some problems with simply taking this particular step without taking others, but it seems to me that is the kind of thing that can be worked out through the committee process if and when this bill gets there. If there are other considerations in terms of timelines, etc, that come into play, they can also be considered, as well as the issue of possibly expanding the scope of the bill and looking at how it fits into other pieces of legislation.

For that reason I will be supporting this bill, because I think debate at this point of the proceedings is in fact debate on the principle of a bill, and certainly the principle that is espoused in this bill is one I can support.

I do want to say -- and this will really be an expansion of something I have said in the past in referring to the comments from the member for Oriole, and I regret she is not in the House at the moment. It is incumbent on all of us, if we really are trying to and are serious about making this session every Thursday morning as one that ought to cross partisan divisions, that we be careful in the way in which we try to read what may be coming out of either ministers or other members on the government side in terms of their comments.

Certainly, I do not think there is anyone on the government side dictating to any of the members of the government side how to vote or what to do on issues like this. We obviously have our discussions about private members' bills, as we may do about other issues, but we come to this House on these Thursday mornings very clearly able and willing to stand up and vote as we see befits each and every one of the proposals that come before us.

When we start to try to read any more than that into the positions that might be coming forward from individuals on this side of the House, I think it certainly does not assist in the building of the kind of relations that need to be built, particularly around private members' bills and resolutions, but hopefully on other ventures as well.

I reiterate that, and I will be happy to stand up and continue to make that point throughout the proceedings as private members' bills come forward, although I hope that as time goes on it will be less and less necessary to do that and that more and more of our time can be devoted to looking really in a critical way and in a constructive way at the proposals that come forward. Just to sum up, I will be supporting this bill because I think it expands the concept of access to justice for groups beyond what exists now in law, and for that reason is something worthy of support.

Mr Chiarelli: I want to thank the member for Dovercourt for his support and for putting the issue in context of the private members' hour.

I want to speak most directly to the people of Ottawa-Carleton today because the people of Ottawa-Carleton really support this legislation and have done so for the past three years.

Last week I sent a letter, personally delivered, to the Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre, asking for her support. I was very disappointed to see the first speaker for the government stand up today, being a minister, being opposed to it, and what appears to be a majority on the government side nodding their heads in agreement opposing this.

I say to the member for Ottawa Centre that she is going to have to answer to Russ Barton from the Federation of Community Associations in Ottawa-Carleton; she is going to have to answer to Barry Wellar from the Carlingwood Action Group; she is going to have to answer to Bob Fortin from the Civic Forum; she is going to have to answer to Hillary Pearson from the New Edinburgh Community Alliance; she is going to have to answer to Mark Deuhez from Heritage Ottawa.

The overwhelming majority of people in Ottawa-Carleton support this legislation, have communicated their support for this legislation. I am very disappointed to see that the minister from eastern Ontario has not been able to convince her caucus colleagues, in fact her cabinet colleagues, to support this amendment. There is tremendous support in Ottawa-Carleton for it and there will be a tremendous amount of disappointment.

In fact, I really believe that if the NDP members vote against this bill today they are going to be hanging out to dry the member for Ottawa Centre, who ought to be here supporting it. Not only will they be hanging out the member for Ottawa Centre to dry, they will be hanging out all those sincere, honest people in community public interest groups who will continue not to have a level playing field.

ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS ÉLECIRIQUES

Mr Jordan moved second reading of Bill 67,

An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems.

M. Jordan propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 67, Loi concernant les installations électriques.

Mr Jordan: I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the members of this Legislature for the opportunity this morning to speak in support of Bill 67.

The two main points of this bill are public safety and economics for the people of Ontario. I would like first to talk about safety. As many of us are aware, electricity is one of the most efficient, safe, clean and environmentally friendly of all energies used in Ontario. It is extremely versatile and has been recognized as the engine and power of the economy of this province. This energy can also be very dangerous, even deadly, if the installation or the handling of it is not properly understood.

Over the years, Ontario Hydro has taken the responsibility of providing the required inspection staff capable of overseeing the installation of wiring and connection of equipment in the province. The ongoing problem has been to properly identify the person responsible for the actual wiring and connection of the equipment. The person identified to the Ontario Hydro inspection staff does not necessarily have to be the person doing the work.

This bill would require the trade licence number of the person accepting responsibility to be placed on the application for inspection. This procedure would allow a preliminary check on a proposed installation by a qualified tradesman. I want to clarify that this does not prevent an individual from doing minor wiring at his residence or cottage or whatever, but it does require that he has discussed his plan with a professional tradesman to the extent that that person is agreeable that he may use his number on his application for inspection.

This in turn gives the inspector someone he can follow up with; if there should be defects or whatever in the wiring, the inspector then has a contact who understands the code book and understands the message that comes out itemizing the defects on that particular job.

Under the present setup, those defects go to an individual -- it could be a grandfather, a grandson -- and that person does not know the code book or does not understand the defects that are being presented. So in the interest of safety what I am attempting to do with this bill is encourage people to consult with a professional tradesman before even purchasing the material, because as members know today, the technology changes, and the difference in the types of equipment available is ongoing.

Ontario Hydro makes an effort through its inspection staff, with evening seminars in conjunction with the Ontario Electrical League, to keep the tradesmen and the profession up to date on the Ontario electrical code. But to try to keep every individual up to date is impossible, so what happens is that an individual applying for a wiring permit sometimes, and I have had occasion to witness this myself, has invested a lot of money in equipment that is outdated and is no longer acceptable by the code. It could be the type of insulation on the wire; it could be the type of terminal box that is to be used.

At this time I think it would be well to mention that the new 1990 Ontario Electrical Code, revised, has just been issued and is effective as of 4 March 1991. Applications were still accepted under the old revision until Monday of this week, so I think it is timely that we take a serious look at this at this time.

Consultation with a professional would allow a check on the equipment. It would give assurance to the inspection department that somebody, as I say, who understands the trade has in fact been consulted. Members could imagine the poor public relations that tend to be developed by the inspector arriving at a residence, at a recreation room or at a cottage, and finding that equipment was bought on sale and the person marketing that equipment is under no real responsibility to advise that it is no longer approved, or may not even know that.

So when the inspector advises the customer that he is sorry that this equipment is no longer approved and that it has to be removed, there is a tremendous cost involved to the customer. There is an administration cost and a labour cost involved to Ontario Hydro and each individual in the province of Ontario, because that cost is reflected in the rate per kilowatt-hour that we pay on our Hydro bill.

What is happening at the present time is that when the inspector goes out he actually becomes part of a skills development scene where he is in fact training an individual to be familiar with the code book, to be familiar with equipment, and because of his training with people, he tries to do that in such a way that there are no hard feelings against him or the Ontario Hydro utility.

This may be very fine, but the cost of inspection is increasing every day. Ontario Hydro is asking for a considerable increase in rates, and I see this as a very real opportunity to turn the skills development part over to a professional tradesman who the individual is free to consult with at any time and use that number, or if he is a tradesman himself, use that number on the application for inspection.

It has another administration saving in that the office people have a chance to have a direct contact through that number to that tradesman when corrections are required.

If you think of residences with computers and the different types of appliances that are now being used in homes, I believe if you think about that for a little, you can understand the need of professional training. I do not mean when you are replacing a light fixture. Replacement of that type of equipment does not require an inspection per se, but when you are doing service work, a service entrance -- for instance, in the new revisions, it used to be in a large residence you could come directly in to, say, a 400-amp splitter box and take six feeders off that box to feed different areas of that large home.

That is now not acceptable, as of Monday of this week. You must have a main switch prior to that equipment for safety reasons so that when you pull that switch, whether it is the fireman or whoever it is, you know that everything in that house is electrically dead.

These are the kinds of things that an individual, without consultation with a professional in the trade, can spend a lot of money on and have a lot of hard feelings about and, in my thinking, could easily become part of the group by consulting with either his supplier of electrical equipment or some friend of his in the electrical business who does have a licence and is willing to consult on the job.

I would hope that the people here today would try to understand the seriousness of this relative to safety.

Mr Offer: Let me say what a great pleasure it is for me to join in on the debate this morning on this piece of legislation put forward by the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew.

At the outset let me indicate that it had been our intention that both myself and the member for Timiskaming would also be speaking. Unfortunately, the member has been called away on urgent constituency business. We recognize that difficulty, that the member is not going to be able to speak on this particular issue as a result of a matter of urgency in his riding. However, it presents to me, of course, the opportunity to speak at some greater length on this particular piece of legislation, and for that certainly we look forward to it.

The piece of legislation, let me say at the outset, is one which I agree with in principle, because it is a piece of legislation which has as its principle, I believe, the issue of safety, and I believe this particular piece of legislation is timely in its introduction and surely timely as to the debate taking place.

Why I say that is because it was just last March, 4 March of this year, that the 1990 Electrical Safety Code became effective, and in that code there were a variety of changes, a variety of amendments. I think that, although I believe there to be something in the area of 400 changes -- it is impossible for me to speak to those at this time -- it does bring to the fore the issue of not only the complexity of electrical installation, but also that its installation is one which is not a static type of profession. It is one which is constantly changing.

I have had occasion to pick up an

article by Roy Hicks, the chief electrical inspector of Ontario Hydro, and he has spoken at some length as to some of those changes. For instance: "Every consumer's service must now have a single disconnect switch. The Ontario relaxation that allowed up to six subdivisions on a residential service without a single main switch has been eliminated. This means there will be one and only one switch to disconnect the power in a dwelling unit when service work is being done or in the event of a fire."

A second change is that: "Consumer service conductors enter a dwelling unit above grade where practicable. This eliminates the chance for water to enter service panels and switches due to leaks in the service conduit.

"Also at the service panel, there is a new requirement that main switches and panelboards in rooms or areas of combustible construction be mounted such that the back surface is not in contact with or within 50 millimetres (two inches) through air of a material having a flame spread rating greater than 25."

These are but three changes. If time permits, I might have occasion to run through a few others, but it does speak to the necessity in the area of installation of people to be well acquainted with not only what the code is, but also to be acquainted with the fact that the code is constantly changing and that it is an obligation, a responsibility to try to keep abreast of these changes.

This is a piece of legislation which is not just applicable to the commercial sector. I think that is an important aspect to bring forward. I think that many people, when taking a look at legislation such as this or in fact the standards code, seem to immediately draw a connection between that and the commercial sector and feel that much of the work is done by accredited electricians. In fact, a great deal of work is done within our own homes: people doing rec rooms, a variety of additions to their homes. The use of computers in homes may necessitate change.

Fax machines are now becoming almost commonplace, although I do not state that as a fact; I just state that it is not as surprising any longer when someone does have a fax machine, a computer setup with graphics, with printers and a variety of other electrical appliances in their homes today which were not in their homes 5 or 10 years ago, or even contemplated. It is important, if there is going to be a change in the electrical characteristics of a home, that that work be done by someone who is qualified.

I recognize that a great deal of the work is done by home owners. That is their right. That is in many ways a recreation. I believe that this bill speaks to the fact and to the issue that it is not against the home owner or the relative performing the work, but rather that the work, which is of an increasingly complex nature, be at least supervised by an individual who is accredited, who is qualified. That is what this particular piece of legislation speaks to, and because the work under this piece of legislation is one which suggests guidance, advice or in fact hands-on assistance in a very dangerous and complicated matter, it is one which I certainly can support in principle.

I move back to some of the changes to the code. I think that we should preface everything by recognizing that in the code there have been 450 changes to the electrical safety code, about 40 deletions and indeed 30 appendix B changes. This is important to just recognize as having happened, and when we keep in mind these changes and additions and deletions, on one hand, and on the other hand we recognize that there are a great many electrical pieces of work being done in homes, we want to try to marry the two, to make certain that that work is being done, supervised or assisted by accredited electricians.

I do not see anything wrong, I do not see anything surprising in that type of principle, in that type of direction, and it is for that that I support the piece of legislation.

A few other changes, just to once more bring home the fact of these types of matters: There has been an additional requirement that will affect the bundling of non-metallic sheathed cables. Some here might say, "Well, my goodness, why is this person becoming so complex in this area?" In fact, this really talks to the concern of the overheating of a cable when they are bundled together. I do not have to speak in this Legislature as to the tragic consequences of overheating, what that can potentially cause and the tragedies that can result from it.

These are of course matters which we, as all members of the Legislature, must keep in mind and must, I believe, have as our responsibility and obligation to address them as best we can, and this particular piece of legislation I believe does.

Now, I speak in support of the principle, but I do wish to add certain concerns, and I do not want everyone to say: "Oh, here it comes. The member is now going to really rip apart the piece of legislation." No, that is not the case. I do speak about some concerns as I was taking a look at some of the readings over the bill and certainly some of the articles which have been written about the changes.

We have to recognize, in a sense, the workability of the bill. When we say that work will be supervised -- I believe, if memory serves me correctly, that was what the member for Lanark-Renfrew referred to -- sponsored by accredited electricians, it sounds good, it sounds right, but I think we have to take a look at what is the liability of the sponsoring electrician. What are the questions that electrician will ask in terms of his or her sponsorship?

What will be the case of an electrician stating to a home owner, "If this is the work you are going to do, this is how it should proceed," and then be signing his name to it, in essence, which may, if there has not been that hands-on help, result in some problem, result in some deficiency which Ontario Hydro may have uncovered, result in some damage or destruction?

The electrician will say, "Well, I need some protection in a certain liability sense." It is not, I believe, enough to say that we are just going to have an accredited electrician sponsor a particular piece of work without going further and saying that electrician is most likely going to be asking questions as to the liability that he or she is potentially holding himself or herself out to.

It may very well be that in order to get an electrician to so sponsor any particular work, which in a home can be very complex -- and I have gone through some of the changes in the code which make that quite evident -- he may say, "Listen, I am not going to put my name or number to that particular piece of work without having to be there." That, of course, talks to whether in fact we are potentially creating a barrier, even for the most right reasons, to people doing the work by themselves in their home, and then there are all the costs that may arise, the cost of the work and items of this nature.

I say that this piece of legislation, once more, is one which I certainly agree with in principle. I think it has as its fundamental basis safety. I believe that to be an issue which all members of this Legislature should be in support of. I think it also reflects that the code has just recently gone under massive change, that it is a code which is constantly changing, that we have a responsibility to make certain that the work that is being done, not just in the commercial sector but also in the private, the residential sector, is one which is safe, is one which complies and it is one which has some sort of an overseeing mechanism.

It is a bill which I believe does deserve further scrutiny, certainly on the whole issue of liability, certainly on the issue as to how we can marry or meld the person in the home doing the work with the accredited electrician overseeing the work.

I applaud the member for bringing forward this particular piece of legislation. I look forward to continued debate on this matter, and I certainly look forward to more debate.

Mr McLean: I am extremely pleased to have this opportunity to provide a few comments on private member's Bill 67,

An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems, and I congratulate my colleague the member for Lanark-Renfrew for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House.

As we all know, "This bill would prohibit persons from performing work on electrical wiring system unless they hold a certificate of qualification as an electrician or perform the work under the supervision of someone who does hold a certificate," which means they can go ahead and do the work, provided that it is being done under the jurisdiction of somebody who is qualified and holds a certificate.

As well, "Persons who apply to Ontario Hydro for an inspection of work performed on an electrical wiring system would be required to indicate the certificate of qualification number of the person who carried out or supervised the work on the application, and would not be entitled to an inspection unless this was done."

This bill is pure common sense. It is just one more example of the commonsense ideas, proposals and policies that are being generated by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr Mills: What has that got to do with Bill 67?

Mr McLean: I want to make sure the members know it. The commonsense focus of this bill is on safety and economics for the people of this province. It is my understanding that if this bill is passed, and I expect it will be, it will mean the people of this province will be saving electrical inspection and equipment costs by almost one third. That is what I call good economics.

There is no doubt in my mind that all of us in this House should support legislation that will save the people of Ontario money. People are fed up with a government that keeps coming to them for more. When the previous Liberal government ran out of money, it taxed the people, it borrowed, it ran a deficit. Now I am worried that the current NDP government is going to pick up where the Liberals left off.

The taxpayers of Ontario know that taxes are way out of whack with their ability to pay, and that worries them a great deal. We are now the highest-taxed jurisdiction, not just in Canada but in all of North America. This worries people, especially when we are in a time of recession, because it is choking the economy and it is killing jobs. It is feeling demands for even more government spending, and more government spending means only one thing: higher taxes. For every dollar earned in Ontario today people are paying 51 cents in taxes.

In other words, the government is getting more of the worker's paycheque than he or she does. Taxpayers, families, students, the sick and the poor and the elderly, all of us are now paying the price for the excess of government.

The Premier's recent decision to effectively allow Ontario's spending and deficit to skyrocket even more, plus hike taxes, is a receipt for disaster.

When we have a bill before us, a commonsense bill that would reduce in some cases up to a third, as I have indicated, of the cost of installing electrical safety and wiring, I think it is important that we do take a look and we should be developing methods for saving them money. That is why I support this bill. It will save money while providing an element of safety. That is why this bill is so important here today.

This bill does not prevent individuals from installing wiring in the new home that they are building with the help of a friend, but it does mean they have to have a number of a qualified electricians. I see no hardship in that. Because of the detriment to society in the fires in the homes we could have, its safety is number one.

This bill is especially important because of the new electrical safety code that came into effect on 4 March 1991. This has made many changes. Indications are there are about 450 changes in the new Electrical Safety Code. So when we look at how it affects residential installations, I think it is important, and this bill is important today to allow this thing to happen.

With regard to installation, "Also at the service panel, there is a new requirement that main switches and panelboards in rooms or areas of combustible construction be mounted such that the back surface is not in contact with or within 50 millimetres (2 inches) through air of a material having a flame spread...." It goes on and gives some of the new criteria, and I think the electricians who are allowing people to do their own wiring should make them fully aware of what these new qualifications are.

It is really a very simple bill. The bill is not long. It just is simple enough that I believe the Minister of Energy would probably see fit to support it and the members of her government I am sure would see fit to support it. I think really it just makes sure that people who are qualified have the jurisdiction over those who are doing their own wiring in their own homes.

Mr B. Murdoch: It's just common sense.

Mr McLean: It is a plain commonsense bill and it is a bill that is going to save the taxpayers some money. There are provisions in the bill that anybody who contravenes is guilty of an offence and will be charged. When we have these types of bills in the Legislature in private members' hour on Thursday mornings, I think the government would do well to listen to some of the points that are put across by the members in the opposition. I think the member for Durham East would be supporting this bill fully with his knowledge of what the taxpayers' cost has been.

As an individual who worked for the Ministry of Revenue, I know he would feel that saving the taxpayer money would be one of the main and most important things on his mind.

Mr Speaker, I want to thank you for the opportunity to say a few words. I am certainly supporting this bill and urge every member here to do so.

Hon Ms Carter: I do appreciate what the member for Lanark-Renfrew is trying to do with this bill, though I want to qualify his remarks on electricity being such a clean, safe and environmentally friendly fuel. Certainly at the point of use it is, but just how much so depends on how it is generated.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew is trying to save Ontario Hydro and through it consumers some money and also to encourage safety. That is appreciated, and these are some of the points that people have raised about this bill. There is also the question of people who may be out at the cottage and it is difficult to get the Hydro inspector in and so on. All that is well taken. The problem I have is that if this bill were put into practice, the results would not be quite what are being foreseen here. I would like to suggest some of the problems that might arise.

First of all, Canadians are do-it-yourselfers and I think on the whole that is a good characteristic. People like to be independent, they like to feel they know something about practical matters and that they can do things themselves in their homes and their cottages and wherever. I believe at the present time about 50% of electrical work that is done by people on their own is not inspected by Hydro because those people do not notify Hydro, and that, of course, is a problem and a safety hazard.

I am afraid that if this legislation comes in so that all wiring has to be done either by a qualified electrician or under the supervision of one, a few people might say, "All right, we won't do what we would have done before, we'll get somebody in," but others might just say, "This is too much of a nuisance, we'll just go ahead and do it anyway." We are going to increase the proportion of jobs of this kind that are done unsafely, inefficiently and are then not inspected because people who have done this work without supervision are then going to be unable to call on an inspector to come and check it out. This opens up all kinds of dangerous possibilities.

At the present time Ontario Hydro does interact, as was suggested, fairly heavily with people who are doing work on their own. They make sure people have the information they need to do the job right. This takes time. They inspect very carefully, and if they find mistakes, they give instructions for correcting them and then they come back again and reinspect. Of course, it is publicly paid time. It does mean spending ratepayers' dollars, but as I said, there is another side to this issue.

If we do not help people in this way to do these things, what are we going to do? Are we going to put draconian restrictions that tell people they cannot do things in their own homes? How would we even enforce restrictions of that kind? How are we going to prevent innocent people from being unnecessarily endangered by unsafe wiring? The dangers that are inherent in this kind of situation are very drastic dangers, dangers of electrocution, of buildings catching fire and burning and so on. We cannot run the risk of this kind of incident being increased.

This kind of restriction has been introduced in other jurisdictions. It has happened in some provinces that there have been cases of electricians filing papers saying that work was done by them or was supervised by them when this was not the case and they have collected fees from do-it-yourselfers for signing off and allowing their name or number to be used. I am not suggesting this would happen in Ontario. I have trust in the electricians of this province, but it is a disquieting precedent and it is something that should be taken into account when we are thinking about this issue.

Also, there could be some other undesirable spinoffs. The member for Lanark-Renfrew was saying that with things as they are, people buying unsuitable equipment, maybe they are not sufficiently up to date on what is required and they waste their money, and of course that is to be deplored. But if his ideas were implemented, it is possible that we should have to require the removal of all electrical materials from publicly accessible retail outlets.

The public would be denied the freedom of buying this equipment, and thus business would be impacted and a significant source of income would be denied to the commercial hardware market. So this financial argument can work two ways round. There would also be a temptation for people to buy equipment of this kind across the border or overseas and bring it back into Ontario, and we do not want to encourage cross-border shopping.

On balance, I feel that this bill should be opposed. I am not issuing any draconian orders to anybody. I do feel it encourages evasion of the law and would, on balance, lead to less safety, not more. I would also like to make it clear that Ontario Hydro itself opposes this initiative. In particular the manager of electrical inspection for Hydro is not in favour of this idea being implemented.

Mr Arnott: I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill 67,

An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems. I know that my good friend the member for Lanark-Renfrew has a great deal of knowledge and expertise in this area. He has worked for Ontario Hydro for I think 39 years. I know him to be very sincere in this initiative and I know he has very vast knowledge in this area.

While I myself have done a considerable deal of research to be prepared to speak on this, I still find it somewhat complex and I am not 100% sure I understand the technical aspects of it, but as my colleague the member for Simcoe East indicated, I feel this is a commonsense principle that we should look at very closely. The member for Mississauga North has also supported it for a number of reasons, and I feel this initiative merits our support and our consideration.

There is a public safety issue involved, as the member for Lanark-Renfrew has indicated, that has to be looked at. If electricity is not handled properly and safely, there is considerable risk. I think if we ensure that electrical equipment installation is done within the supervision of a qualified tradesman, we enhance safety aspects considerably, and I think that we have to look towards that part of the argument.

Simply for an individual to request the trade licence number of a qualified technician to put on the application for inspection I feel does not in any way hinder the individual's efforts to do the work in his own home. I do not think that is hindered at all and I am quite surprised by the minister's suggestion that safety would in fact be minimized and be somewhat less in effect if this bill were to come into law.

The minister indicates there would be more abuses rather than fewer. I am quite surprised at that. I do not feel that is the case. I think that most people do have an understanding that electricity is something you deal with quite carefully and that you would want a Hydro inspector to come in, irrespective of how the work has been done. I certainly do not agree in that respect.

I understand that Ontario Hydro does work co-operatively to attempt to have people very well aware of how the electricity should be handled and how the work should be done within our own homes, but as the member for Lanark-Renfrew has indicated as well as the member for Mississauga North, there have been 450 changes to the code just in the past month or so. I do not know how often those are reviewed but that is a significant number of changes. I think it is very difficult for the Ministry of Energy or Ontario Hydro to attempt to apprise individuals of the changes. I just do not see that as being a point that should sway our opinion on this act. It has not swayed my opinion.

I know this has affected my family recently. My wife's first cousin was very, very seriously burned two weeks ago while he was working in a manhole. It certainly underlines the realization that we have to treat electricity with care, in my own feeling, and I think this bill and this initiative by the member for Lanark-Renfrew does in fact do that.

I indicate that I will be supporting it fully and I hope we receive support from members of all parties. I hope the indication from the Minister of Energy will not bias anyone's opinion as to this. I hope they look at our arguments carefully and closely and consider all points that have been made in this debate before they render their judgement on this bill.

Mr Huget: I would like to thank the member for Lanark-Renfrew for his contribution this morning in bringing forward Bill 67. As the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Energy, I have found that the member is well respected in the ministry for his very constructive role as opposition critic on all energy issues.

Unfortunately, today I must also argue against his bill. While Bill 67 is an effort to find a constructive solution to a genuine concern, it creates more problems than it solves and I must encourage my colleagues in the House to oppose it.

Bill 67 effectively calls for an end to the home handyperson's work on wiring. With the host of do-it-yourself books on the shelves and the long tradition of renovated houses and cottages in the real estate market, it is not hard to see why so many people want to do it themselves when it comes to wiring, the same as when it comes to drywalling, painting and installing carpet.

But there is a difference, and it is an important difference here. Faulty wiring is a serious danger to the public. Because of this danger the province of Ontario has strict regulations on wiring, and requires that the wiring be inspected by professionals from Hydro. Without these inspections, there would be serious risk of mistakes in wiring going undetected until disaster struck. Bill 67 would put an end to all that.

Times being what they are and full-time professional help costing what it does, some home handypeople would still choose to do their wiring themselves, but under Bill 67 they could not do it legally and they could not get it inspected. The risks involved in that are, I think, too big for us to take.

I want to raise another issue here. What would it take to enforce Bill 67 if it were passed? I think we need to think very clearly about that. It would be illegal for the ordinary man or woman to do wiring. To make that stick, you would have to take electrical materials off the shelf at regular hardware stores, or you would be inviting illegal activity. The retail hardware trade in this province would take that very hard. Since no electrical supplies would be available off the shelf, even legitimate home do-it-yourself programs and simple maintenance jobs, like changing a light switch or fixing a plug, would be interrupted.

Since other jurisdictions have shown that people still do some of the electrical work despite restrictions of this kind, we could expect people to go out of their way to get materials they need anyway. Where would they get them? In communities like mine they would get them in the United States. Since Bill 67 would have to be followed by measures to restrict their right to buy electrical materials, people would be motivated to engage in cross-border shopping to get what they need.

I do not think I have to go on much longer to convince the House that Bill 67, for its good intentions -- and I admit they are very good intentions -- creates more problems than it solves and is not a bill that should receive second reading in this House.

Mr B. Murdoch: I am glad to stand in support of this bill. What we have just heard was a lot of rhetoric, and I think some people may say hooey. I would like to say that this bill does not do all those things we just heard about. It does allow the homeowner to do his own work. All he has to do is get a number. If some people would read the bill and understand it, we would not have all this rhetoric and trying to persuade people that the bill is not a good one.

I think that if some of these people would go to some fires that have happened in rural areas where some people have done their own wiring, and if they had to go as some of the volunteer firemen have to do and fight these fires that electrical mistakes have caused, then they would understand this whole bill. It just shows that if you do not read the whole bill, you do not understand it. I think this is what has happened.

I would just like to say that I support this bill wholly, and hope that the people here can use common sense for a change, which has been lacking in this House for the last few years. So hopefully members can see that and vote for this bill.

Mrs Haslam: I did have a house fire. It was not from electrical wiring, but --

Mr Owens: It was the plumbing.

Mrs Haslam: Yes, plumbing. I know how bad a house fire can be, Bill, and I am sorry --

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the chair.

Mrs Haslam: I know how difficult a house fire can be, and I do take the member's remarks to heart. However, I agree with the previous two speakers on this side that there are some problems with this particular bill. One of the things I have a problem with is people who do minor repairs. If I want to put a dimmer switch in, then I put a dimmer switch in. This will alleviate even -- it goes into a minor --

Mr Carr: Can you come to my house? I need one of them.

Mrs Haslam: The member needs one of those?

Mr Villeneuve: Some of us don't.

Mrs Haslam: I am being provoked, Mr Speaker.

I believe that the bill will promote and not reduce illegal activity, and this has been said before, because when you now make it illegal for any type of work to be done, you are getting that person who does that little bit of work in his house -- it is totally illegal now. I feel that a lot of times it is easier for him to get an electrician to come in to do a little bit of work and have it inspected, but when you require him to have an electrician come in and do all of it, he is going to do it himself, and then he is not going to get it inspected. I think that there is a basic problem in this.

It has been unsuccessful in other jurisdictions, and I believe that the minister has mentioned that, and I believe the minister has mentioned the spinoffs. I think that there are just too many "ifs" and too many "ands" in this particular legislation that we have to deal with. I do not support this legislation at all. I am sorry that this legislation has come forward and I am unable to support it. You talk about expenses, and I feel that the expenses are going to end up in the consumer's pocket and the problems are going to end up back on the consumer. I do not think the savings are going to be there at all.

Hydro is not in favour of it. They believe that the bill would reduce the safety of electrical installations in dwelling units. People who now have access to electrical parts and products at hardware stores will not have access to these materials. I think there are just too many "ifs," "ands" or "buts" on the part of the consumer and I am afraid I just cannot support this particular bill.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure for me to stand here this morning and talk to my colleague and friend's bill, the member for Lanark-Renfrew. I look on Thursday mornings here as a joyful time that we can debate each other's bills and we can say what we mean without any fear of any --

Mr Villeneuve: Is that the only time you do it, Gordon?

Mr Mills: It is not the only time, but I am running out of time. What I would like to say is that my friend and colleague the member for Peterborough is here this morning as a private member. She is not here to put any hex on me to make me vote against my colleague's bill. She is here as she felt to be part of this caucus, and I take very great exception to the member for Oriole who suggested that she would be here to put the stick over us. That is wrong. Having cleared that, I will speak to my friend's bill here.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When you address the member, do not call him by his first name. Refer to him by his riding.

Mr Owens: He said "the bill."

Mrs Haslam: His first name is Leo, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: You understand what I meant.

Mr Mills: Yes, but I meant "the bill," not "the Bill." My time has almost run out, and I must say that I respect the member for Lanark-Renfrew. I admire him for coming here. Nevertheless, there are some things that I am not comfortable with and, alas, I cannot support it.

Mr Jordan: I want to thank all of the members here today who not only supported the bill but who have spoken against the bill. I regret the fact that the bill has been completely misunderstood. The Minister of Energy's report that Ontario Hydro is against it is not factual, from my information. I am sorry. I just talked with the manager of the Ontario Electrical League and he sees it as a major first step in introducing safety into wiring in Ontario.

These statements by my colleagues on the government side stating that people would be cut off from access to buy material is not a fact. People may buy their material wherever they like. The only things involved in this bill are safety and economics.

The safety

part is, who is going to do the skills training? Is it going to be paid by you and me on our Hydro bill through the inspector, to train the individual who takes out the permit and has no training? The other thing is, are we going to use them as a skills development or are we going to let a professional tradesman assist them in giving information? He does not have to interfere with the individual's right to wire his own garage or cottage or whatever.

The saving back to Ontario Hydro, from the information available to me, could be as much as a third of the time that the inspector uses from May to October on inspection calls. Members can imagine when someone phones in to the inspection office, an individual from Ottawa, for instance, at a cottage out on the Rideau: First of all, he does not know his lot and concession, he does not know where he lives, and all of this is time that we pay that could be looked after by someone in the trade who would not only know the area but would know the profession.

I am sorry the Minister of Energy cannot see that the safety is here. The difference is that training will be by a professional tradesman rather than at our expense through an electrical inspector from Ontario Hydro. It is not only the inspector's time on the job at over $50 an hour. It is the administration time in the office and the bad public relations that are created when the inspection clerk has to convey the message to the property owner that the work is not acceptable, that the material is not acceptable.

These are the points that were missing in this simple bill this morning. I am really upset to have a report that Ontario Hydro is not in favour and that they would have to take the equipment off the shelves of hardware stores. There is no attachment to that whatsoever. People are free to buy the equipment across the border, anyplace they like. All we are asking is that you have a professional trades licence number on your application so we have someone to communicate with in a learned way as to the proper installation of that equipment.

Really, I believe that the members, given a chance to reread the bill and assess it -- I would like to see them consider the bill through the resources development committee for more consultation.

INTERVENOR FUNDING PROJECT AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PROJET D'AIDE FINANCIERE AUX INTERVENANTS

The House divided on Mr Chiarelli's motion for second reading of Bill 39, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Chiarelli pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 39, mise aux voix, est rejetée:

Ayes/Pour-24

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Chiarelli, Cleary, Curling, Elston, Fletcher, Frankford, Harnick, Haslam, Mammoliti, Mancini, Mathyssen, McGuinty, O'Neill, Y., Offer, Scott, Silipo, Sorbara, Ward, B., Waters, Wiseman.

Nays/Contre-40

Abel, Buchanan, Carr, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Cunningham, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Jordan, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Martin, McLean, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Witmer, Wood.

ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS ÉLECIRIQUES

The House divided on Mr Jordan's motion for second reading of Bill 67, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Jordan pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 67, mise aux voix, est rejetée:

Ayes/Pour-18

Arnott, Brown, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Cunningham, Harnick, Jordan, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch, B., Offer, O'Neill, Y., Sterling, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Nays/Contre-46

Abel, Bradley, Buchanan, Caplan, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Elston, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Mancini, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Scott, Silipo, Sorbara, Sutherland, Ward, M., Waters, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wiseman, Wood.

The House recessed at 1209.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr H. O'Neil: As all members of this House are aware, the NDP has unilaterally abolished the oath of allegiance to the Queen for police officers and police commissioners. The Premier has also indicated that the government is examining whether to expand the abolition to include public servants and firefighters.

The NDP took this misguided action without giving either the people of Ontario or the members of this House the opportunity to debate the matter. Instead, the new oath was secretly approved by cabinet and slipped into regulations without warning.

If the government is so proud of its decision to change the oath, why did it not tell everyone? The Premier claims the elimination of the oath to the Queen does not affect the monarchy's role in our affairs. Tell that to the people who are outraged by the government's decision. The Premier says he has not received many negative calls to his office on this issue. I urge people who support the monarchy to call or write the Premier's office and express their disapproval.

At this sensitive and important time in Canadian history, the Premier has chosen to damage a lasting and valuable symbol of Canada's heritage instead of enhancing this symbol. The NDP is tarnishing an institution which plays a valuable role in fostering Canadian unity.

I call on the Premier to acknowledge his mistake and reinstate the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. At the very least, the implementation of the new oath should be delayed until the members of this House and the people of this province have been given the opportunity to debate the issue fully and openly.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr Carr: Halton Women's Shelter is the only shelter in Halton region for the abused women and their children. This one shelter is located in the town of Milton in the north of the region, and it provides a temporary home for up to 18 women at a time. The home is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Counselling is offered to the women and their children. Women also receive assistance in health and life skills, and a community worker is available to accompany the woman to court if required.

While these services have proven to be essential to many abused women and their children in the region, the northern location virtually restricts access to the 25% of those who live in the Milton or Halton Hills area. The remaining 75% live in Burlington and Oakville, where there is no shelter for abused women. The lack of public transportation between the north and the south presents a major barrier to the women in the south who do not have their own means of transportation.

Many surveys and studies have been done which have identified the urgent need for a shelter for abused women in the southern area of Halton. I sincerely hope the ministers of both women's issues and Community and Social Services will recognize this need. I urge them to ensure we in Oakville and Burlington receive a shelter.

ST CATHARINES STANDARD

Ms Haeck: I rise today to salute the St Catharines Standard on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of its founding. On 21 April 1891, two Torontonians founded the Standard in a city that already had three other daily newspapers. After less than a year, the founders faced bankruptcy. In early 1892 their print shop foreman, William Burgoyne, stepped in to purchase the paper for the sum of $1.

Today, under the direction of publisher Harry Burgoyne, great-grandson of the founder, the Standard has 300 employees and has for many decades been the only daily newspaper in St Catharines.

Under managing editor Murray Thomson the newspaper regularly wins prizes for its local and regional reporting. It is notable also for being one of only four family-owned newspapers left in all of Ontario.

The Standard is also the cornerstone of a publishing enterprise that includes at least six weeklies in Niagara and other daily papers as far away as Cobourg and Port Hope. The Standard even publishes the Canada News, well known to vacationers in Florida.

I salute the St Catharines Standard. Although the Standard and I occasionally do not see eye to eye on politics, I am glad to recognize its considerable contributions to shaping the St Catharines that we know today. Happy birthday to the Standard.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Cleary: I rise today in the House to implore the government to take action on the issue of cross-border shopping, which has become a public safety crisis in the Cornwall area. It is estimated that cross-border shopping may cost Cornwall more than $12 million in sales, representing a loss of 120 jobs.

Cross-border shopping has become so severe that traffic jams are occurring along the Seaway International Bridge and along local roads serving the bridge. Two-hour waits at the bridge are not uncommon. The Mohawk Grand Chief Mike Mitchell has raised concerns that reserve residents may be in danger if the traffic congestion along the bridge area continues to cut off the emergency vehicle access to the reserve. In his comments on the issue Chief Mitchell also reiterated the well-known fact that low US prices, especially for gasoline and cigarettes, are luring Canadians across the border and clogging access to the reserve.

The Mohawk police of Akwesasne have threatened to block the Seaway International Bridge in my riding this Saturday because of their concerns for public safety. Federal officials met with the Mohawk council to try to resolve this safety issue.

I would urge the Premier of this province to respond quickly to this escalating problem. With the impending blockade of the Seaway bridge, the government should take immediate action to make Ontario business competitive and to encourage people in border communities to spend their Canadian dollars in Canada.

FLOODING

Mr McLean: This past week a number of communities and townships on the Burnt and Irondale rivers were devastated by severe flooding. Areas which were hit particularly hard include the townships of Somerville, Dysart, Glamorgan and Snowdon.

Is this government prepared to assist in any way possible the home owners, cottage owners and businesses in this region as they attempt to recover from this disaster? Water levels have gone as high as the first storey of many buildings, leaving basements damaged. Local roads have been washed out and drainage systems severely damaged.

Will the Ministry of the Environment be prepared to assess the environmental damage the overflow of these rivers has caused? The people of the region eagerly await the government's answers.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr McLean: The Minister of Natural Resources has been making a lot of noise about the approximate $1.5-million shortfall in angling licence money that has not been returned to fisheries' budgets.

The minister whines about the former Liberal government placing licence fee revenues in general revenues. He knows that once they end up in general revenues, they are gone for ever.

I would suggest the minister stop whining and bring forward legislation that would create a special fish and wildlife fund based on the revenues generated by all fishing and hunting licensing fees. If this was done, then maybe he would not have to close three fish hatcheries and slash the budget for the policing of poaching.

PARENT-TEACHER ASSOCIATIONS

Mrs MacKinnon: This year is the 75th anniversary of the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. The federation has designated next week as Home and School Week. I rise today to congratulate parents' associations on their valuable contributions to our province's educational system.

The three umbrella parents' associations are the Federation of Francophone Parents' Associations of Ontario, the Federation of Catholic Parent-Teacher Associations of Ontario, and the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations. These associations represent about 1,000 local home and school associations across the province.

As a former school trustee, I encourage more parents to become involved in their children's education and I also encourage schools in welcoming and responding to parental input.

Once again, congratulations to the Ontario Federation of Home and School Associations and to all the parents who have or are currently helping us meet the goals of education excellence.

CHILD CARE

Mrs McLeod: Child care in Ontario is at a significant crossroads. The goal of affordable, accessible, quality child care, developed to ensure full parental choice and involvement, has been compromised by the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The minister in her policy statement of 31 January has demonstrated that she is not able to manage the child care system in Ontario in a way that reflects both need and reality. The minister provided salary dollars to the nonprofit sector only. She has forgotten that 34% of the province's parents are choosing child care programs offered in commercial centres and has placed these centres at a disadvantage in attracting and maintaining qualified, capable staff and even in remaining open.

The minister has failed to manage exploding welfare case loads and has forced municipalities into a position where they have to scramble to meet their social assistance obligations and cannot afford child care subsidies. Peel region, where welfare case loads have grown by 90%, has notified the ministry that it is not in a position to take advantage of an additional 243 subsidized spaces. The minister's subsidy announcement has come too late in the budget-year process for some municipalities to take advantage of it.

I look for a sense of priority in child care and find none. There appear to be no goals for the long-term planning and expansion of the system. There is no attempt to maintain the viability of the current system to ensure that parents and children have access to the spaces they need. Child care is a necessity. It must be responded to.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Jackson: I call the attention of all members to the crisis of accountability currently affecting our provincial welfare system under the NDP.

The story of the burgeoning social assistance load in this province is well known. It has increased by 65% over the same amount reported last year. The Daily Bread Food Bank in Metro Toronto reports that it now assists over 120,000 people on a monthly basis. Over 300,000 children in Ontario are now living below the poverty line.

Clearly the number of those who suffer from genuine need in Ontario is greatest today. Therefore, we must address the problem of those on welfare rolls who either do not need to be or who maliciously take advantage of already strained welfare budgets to rob benefits from others who urgently require them.

This question is one of government accountability for our social assistance program. This was openly discussed by journalist Diane Francis, who was irresponsibly maligned by this government for making public her investigations into proposed NDP welfare changes and documented cases of its abuse.

This will be a costly political lesson that this government will have to learn, but unfortunately at taxpayers' expense. I call on the NDP to recognize that accountability is the best way to ensure that those most in need of assistance will receive it.

Accountability means different things to different politicians. For the NDP, success of social support is measured by the number of people being added to the welfare rolls. For the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, its success is measured by the number of people who no longer require social assistance.

FLOODING

Mr Drainville: The residents of communities bordering the Burnt River in my riding of Victoria-Haliburton have endured the destructive force of spring floods. Fortunately, due to the hard work of the emergency crews, there has been no loss of human life.

Since the flooding began last week, I have travelled through seven different communities gathering information on the problems that are facing my constituents. One thing is clear from these discussions, that the assistance of many groups from the municipal and provincial governments has been substantial and effective.

I would like to draw the attention of this assembly to some of the emergency crew members who have helped so many people in their time of need: from the township of Somerville, Reeve Bryce Young, Deputy Reeve Sue Douglas, Councillor John Austin, Clerk-Treasurer Tammy McKelvey and the staff in this small township; from the OPP at Coboconk who evacuated four families, Staff Sergeant Peter Alexander, Sergeant Patrick Dunn and constables Frank Sokol, Paul Bradley and Dave Fletcher. Fenelon firefighters Fred Elder and John Williamson were assisted by two OPP sergeants in rescuing two cottagers who spent a night on a cold and wet knoll.

I would also like to commend the work of the Ministry of Natural Resources that has done fine work throughout this difficulty. I would also like to say that the provincial government has responded directly and immediately to the needs of the people and they deserve to be given due accord at this time as well.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

The Speaker: Yesterday the member for Simcoe West rose on a question of privilege with respect to the changes in the oath of allegiance required to be sworn by members of police forces in the province. I have had an opportunity to review the member's submission and the relevant parliamentary authorities.

It may be useful to stress the very nature of parliamentary privilege. Standing order 21(

a) defines privilege as "the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

Australia House of Representatives' Practice notes that "parliamentary privilege relates to the special rights and immunities which belong to the Parliament, its members and others, which are considered essential for the operation of the Parliament. These rights and immunities allow the Parliament to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role, for members to discharge their responsibilities to their constituents and for others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities without obstruction or fear of prosecution."

These special rights and immunities of the House and its members include the right of free speech in Parliament, immunity from arrest or detention for civil causes during defined periods, immunity of members from the obligation to serve on juries, immunity of witnesses from being questioned or impeached for evidence given before the House or its committees, the right of the House to establish its own rules and enforce them, the power to expel members and the power to order the arrest and imprisonment of persons guilty of contempt or breach of privilege.

It is only in very restricted circumstances that there can come to the House a legitimate case of privilege on the basis of the real, accepted and traditional definition of parliamentary privilege.

It is my opinion that the circumstances raised by the member for Simcoe West do not fall within the definition of privilege I have cited. There is no indication that the House and its members have been impeded in the performance of their duties as a result of the changes in the oath of allegiance required to be sworn by members of Ontario's police forces. Accordingly, I must rule that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established which would permit the matter to take precedence over the other business of the House.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Speaker: Further, before beginning oral questions, I hope the House will bear with me for a few moments while I consider some of the concerns that have been raised with me and others regarding the conduct of question period. In recent weeks, I have been keeping track of the time used by questioners and those providing responses during this very important part of our proceedings. The figures make it clear that both the questions and the responses are becoming longer and therefore fewer members get to ask a question.

Our standing orders set out very rigidly how our question period is to be run, and very little discretion, if any, is left to the Speaker in that sense. Furthermore, our question period is a full 60 minutes long, which should provide the necessary time for many members to ask their questions.

The point I want to make is that the Chair will undertake to use persuasion upon members who are taking too long to ask or to answer a question, but I would also ask that the members themselves do their part to assist the Chair by making their questions and supplementaries as short and to the point as possible, and that the ministers do the same in providing their responses.

With the time provided and with co-operation, there should be no problem in dealing with 12 to 13 or more questions every day. Actually, until recently, that was the average number of questions we were achieving. Hopefully, we can go beyond that number.

If the House leaders or any other member of the assembly wishes to meet with me regarding this matter, I would be most pleased to do so. This is your question period and I am certain that by working together we can make it useful and productive.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Hon Ms Ziemba: Later today I will introduce legislation regarding advocacy for vulnerable adults. My hope is that the bill will be referred to committee for further comment, particularly by consumers.

Society is judged, in part, on the basis of how it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Historically, many vulnerable adults have been victims of abuse and exploitation. They have often been silenced and deprived of the opportunity to exercise their fundamental rights. Such rights include the right to make choices, the right to participate in shaping one's own future and the future of the community, and above all, the right to speak out for change.

The Advocacy Act is the centrepiece of a legislative package to address this injustice. The companion acts, the Health Services Consent Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, will be introduced later by my colleagues the Minister of Health and the Attorney General.

In its simplest form, advocacy provides a voice for those who may have difficulty in expressing themselves because of a disability, whatever its nature, and who do not have the support of family and friends to assist them in doing so. This legislation is about empowerment, choice and dignity. Advocates will ensure that vulnerable adults have the power to make decisions and exercise their right of choice. For this reason, advocates will be responsible to their clients, within the limits of the law, and while they will provide information and perhaps make recommendations, they will abide by the wishes of their clients.

The advocacy program will be sensitive to the traditions and heritage of Ontario's aboriginal peoples and their right to provide their own advocacy services. It will also take into account the culture, traditions and religion of vulnerable persons in this province.

In order to ensure that advocates can carry out their work, they will be given the right to enter both public and, under certain conditions, private premises, and to visit privately with clients. Advocates will, with the consent of the vulnerable persons, also have access to individual records held by facilities.

In the course of their work, we expect that advocates will encounter circumstances in which the safety, comfort or wellbeing of vulnerable people is being compromised. If the advocates' inquiries reveal widespread or chronic abuse, neglect or ineffectiveness in such situations, then changes will have to be made. This may involve systemic changes, including new laws, practices and policies in both the public and private sectors. We are fully prepared to see that happen.

Our next step will be to set up an Advocacy Commission which will operate at arm's length from government. In keeping with our commitment to community involvement, we will form a broadly based advisory committee representative of the disabled and senior citizens' communities. This advisory committee will nominate candidates to serve on the commission. The commission will also be representative of the communities it serves.

Once the commission has been set up, it will develop standards and training programs for the advocates themselves. Some advocates will work directly for the commission, while others will be employees or volunteers of non-profit, community-based organizations.

In developing this act, we have relied on the help and advice of many people who have worked long and very hard for this day. I would be remiss if I did not say thank you and congratulations to representatives of the Ontario Advocacy Coalition, and especially to three special advisers: Judith Wahl, David Baker and David Giuffrida.

I am pleased to place this legislation before the House and to set in motion a new era of empowerment for vulnerable adults. I believe that ultimately it will give voice to those who have been silenced and forgotten for too long.

FORESTRY AUDIT

Hon Mr Wildman: I would like to announce today details of an independent audit that will examine the area of the boreal forest of northern Ontario that has been harvested. This is the first audit of its kind in Canada.

The main purpose of the audit will be to determine the success or failure of artificial and natural regeneration on previously harvested areas of the boreal forest. Regeneration on both crown management units and areas covered by forest management agreements will be studied.

For many years, industry and government have measured and portrayed their performance in regeneration in terms of dollars spent, hectares planted and so on. There has been far too little attention paid to the results of these efforts. The examination of the current state of natural and artificial regeneration on cutover areas of the boreal forest will provide new information on this one aspect of the forest ecosystem. This audit is an essential component in a sustainable forestry strategy. It will provide a crucial starting point and a guide for future investment in Ontario's forests.

There will be a public consultation process to finalize the terms of reference for the audit and also to review the findings. The information from the audit will be made available to the public in a clear and concise manner.

Successful regeneration is vital to the long-term health of our forest, forest industries and communities dependent on forests. However, to date, regeneration efforts have not kept pace with harvesting. Despite increased investment in forest renewal, there is a gap between the area we cut and the area of forest we renew each year. Last year this regeneration gap was about 20,000 hectares.

In the speech from the throne, this government said it is determined to see that our forests are regenerated. The independent audit is an important first step in meeting that commitment. The audit will provide a benchmark on the status of regeneration of the boreal forest that will assist us in developing our agenda for a sustainable forestry. Using this benchmark, the public will be able to measure the success of future timber management activities in the boreal forest.

The independent audit will be conducted by a three-person committee. The chair will be Kenneth Hearnden, who recently retired as professor emeritus after 15 years at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay. Mr Hearnden was a professor of forestry and dean of students at Lakehead. He also spent 21 years at Abitibi Paper Co in Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay.

One of the vice-chairs will be Susan Millson, who operates Millson Forestry Service, a company that produces tree seedlings in Timmins. Mrs Millson's company also provides silvicultural, research and planning services. She is a graduate of the forestry program at Lakehead University.

The other vice-chair is Chief Willy Wilson, chief of the Rainy River Band. Chief Wilson is also the chair of the Indian forestry development program and the chair of the board of directors of the National Aboriginal Forestry Foundation. The independent audit committee is here with us in the gallery opposite. Unfortunately, Chief Wilson was unable to be with us here this afternoon.

I am convinced that the people of Ontario want to see better forest management. They also want to participate in the decisions we make in managing our forests. The audit will provide the public, the forest industry and the ministry with more of the information needed to improve forest management and to participate fully in it. I am looking forward to it.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Hon Ms Churley: It is my pleasure to inform members of the House that the week of 22 to 28 April 1991 will be National Consumer Week in Ontario.

In proclaiming National Consumer Week, I am pleased to recognize the role of all who encourage and promote consumer education and awareness. I applaud their efforts, be it as community volunteers or as professional consumer educators in the school system, business or government.

National Consumer Week is an opportunity for every province and municipality to help educate Canadian consumers. My congratulations to municipalities that have issued proclamations in honour of National Consumer Week. These communities include Keewatin and Fort Frances in the northwest, Gananoque, Renfrew and Hawkesbury in eastern Ontario and Windsor and St Thomas in the south as well as Lindsay, Orillia, Midland, Owen Sound, Cobourg, Scarborough, Kitchener and St Catharines.

At this time there are some people I would like to single out. They represent the kinds of individuals and organizations that are making real contributions to marketplace partnership. I draw members' attention to the public gallery. Joining us is Joan Huzar, president of the Ontario wing of the Consumers' Association of Canada. I cannot see her any more. There she is.

As well, I would like to introduce the recipients of the third annual Consumer Education Awards of Excellence. These awards are in recognition of outstanding individual contributions to consumer education and awareness in both the professional and volunteer categories. Barbara Beck of Peterborough is the volunteer consumer education award recipient for her volunteer work with the Consumers' Association of Canada. Linda Routledge of Toronto received the professional consumer education award for her work with the Canadian Bankers' Association.

I would like members to join me at 4 pm, following question period, in caucus room 230 to meet these individuals and representatives of a number of other organizations and groups who have played an important role in helping plan National Consumer Week. By working together, our marketplace will continue to grow and thrive.

BUDGET

Hon Mr Laughren: I would like to advise the House that I intend to present the 1991 Ontario budget to the House on Monday 29 April at 4 pm.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am rising on a point of order concerning the use by the government of the time that is available for ministers' statements. From time to time, members on this side have risen in their seats and raised objections about statements that were made that were insignificant and really were not new policy. Today and yesterday we had events occurring in this province concerning Standard Trustco which are so significant --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please? I think the member knows full well that it is not a point of order with respect to our standing orders and statements by ministers. I do appreciate your interest and concern.

Mr Chiarelli: Can I ask for unanimous consent on a point of order?

The Speaker: You can try. What is the request?

Mr Chiarelli: The unanimous consent that I am asking for is unanimous consent for this House to permit the Minister of Financial Institutions to make a statement concerning Standard Trustco when we have a major Canadian trust company closing its branches across this province.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: I believe the minister should be standing in his place making a report when he was fully --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat, please? I heard at least one negative voice.

RESPONSES

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Mahoney: I would like to respond to the Minister of Citizenship and just say that part of our concern in this party is this: We have five critic areas and there are lots of people who would like to respond to this statement, but because of the workload the Premier has shifted on to this minister, we are going to have to keep our comments within the time frame. With two other ministries making announcements, it makes it extremely difficult for us as an opposition party to do justice to these ministers' statements. Some days we get no announcements. Today they come in with three.

I would like to say to the minister that we do --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Make up your mind, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: Well, give us some time to respond to the issues is the point, to the Premier.

I would like to say that the advocates issue is very important. I would hope that the minister would take into account the rights of families to deal with this issue and not create some bureaucracy that would take away a family's rights to deal with its own family members, that the bureaucracy would not get run away with costs and red tape that are totally out of order and that we recognize the rights of the family members.

I would like to suggest that this minister made this announcement last December and today has just regurgitated the same announcement. She could have come in with the commission today. She could have done something. Instead she is just rehashing old information.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Mr Mahoney: Just to respond briefly to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I was very interested to see that the minister has sharpened her political teeth on the rather thorny issue of declaring and announcing National Consumer Week. I congratulate her for that. I am delighted to see the members of the public in the gallery who are working on this very important issue, but I wonder why the minister did not take off the shelf the new consumer protection code that is sitting there waiting to be introduced in this House.

FORESTRY AUDIT

Mr Ramsay: We welcome the Minister of Natural Resources' announcement today on the forestry audit. I sort of look at it as building on the initiatives of the Baskerville report. As the government party said at the time, Baskerville did not count the trees specifically, and we welcome this second step now. I think Mr Baskerville started this initiative off in looking at some of the substantive issues.

I would like to say that it looks like this audit is maybe only dealing with the second growth. I would remind the minister that we have to be also looking at the old-growth forest in the province and would ask him to continue with those efforts.

The trouble with that second growth, and I think what the minister is going to find, is that after the widespread mechanical harvesting we had since the 1940s, and because we did not have sufficient regeneration until about the 1980s, we have what George Marek, a well-known authority of the forest, calls the junk forest out there, and that certainly needs to be looked at. As the minister knows and is nodding, the junk forest is comprised of a composition of balsam fir and poplar, not the best commercial-value type of wood that is out there. That really has to be looked at to see if we can improve our silviculture methods.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP

Mr Curling: I too would like to respond to the Minister of Citizenship to tell her that this is an extremely important act. In the meantime, as we said, the advocacy provides a voice for those who may have difficulty in expressing themselves that, when we do appoint these people, is extremely important.

I am not very impressed with our way of going about appointing people in the last couple of months. I hope that these people who will be speaking on behalf of the other people are well-researched, well-thought-out people who understand the issues and not political appointments, not people blessed by the Premier who feel that because the Premier has blessed them then the committee must follow through and appoint them.

I am not at all impressed at the fact that when we go out in the community, there are many, many people out there who would like to serve on these boards and these commissions. I will again touch on the fact that the Ontario Human Rights Commission, even within itself needs to be looked at with respect to morale, because as soon as we form these organizations, they are fighting within themselves and the cause is not being served properly.

We of course hope that we have got this before so that we can make sure that we have input. The minister still has time in which she can consult with us, and we will make sure that we have a good Advocacy Act.

Mrs Marland: We are pleased today with the minister's announcement. Certainly our party has long supported an independent advocacy system. This minister's introduction today of the Advocacy Act is an important first step. We look forward as well to the introduction of the companion acts, the Health Services Consent Act and the Substitute Decisions Act, in the very near future.

We also look forward to reviewing the legislation in detail and we hope that the government will in fact invite all the relevant interest groups to make comments and give opinions on this legislation.

I do have to make one comment of a negative natura, however. I would feel a little more comfort, I guess is the word, if this minister did not wait for this Advocacy Commission that she is talking about to address some of the needs that we know are already identified for vulnerable adults.

I bear reference to my question at the beginning of this week where I asked her about the safety of blind people in public transit situations. I was referring to the death last year of Rebecca Noble, who actually was a civil servant and died in one of our subway stations in Toronto. It was very discouraging for everyone who is an advocate today, without this legislation, for people with disabilities that the minister responsible for disability issues did not choose to answer my question, even if she did not have the answer. She referred it to the Minister of Transportation.

The Minister of Education continues to discriminate against Wally Elgersma, who is attending a Christian school and does not have access to a health care program that would be acceptable to him if he were in another school system. The member for Burlington South has addressed that concern with the Minister of Education.

I simply say we do need the Advocacy Act, but there are other actions that this government should be taking today. They know of situations today that exist that need their attention and need the remedy, and the remedy itself exists.

FORESTRY AUDIT

Mr McLean: We welcome the Minister of Natural Resources' statement outlining his intentions on the auditing and management of the boreal forests of northern Ontario. As the minister may recall, I made a statement in this Legislature on 3 December last year calling for the appointment of independent auditors to deal with the public perception that our forests are being mismanaged. The Ontario Forest Industries Association has been calling for this measure for some time to level the playing field and ensure the industry's compliance with regulatory practices.

We are pleased to see the minister address the very real public concerns about our present forest regulations, which emphasize the extraction of wood fibre over wildlife concerns. We also hope that the public consultation process outlined in the minister's statement leads to greater participation among environmentalists, the forestry industry and all others in this province involved with the valuable resources.

In

summary, we welcome this announcement as a positive sign for the future management and conservation of our important forests.

NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK

Mr Jackson: I would like to respond to the statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Although all members in this House share a commitment to improving consumer protection in this province, we do not share, however, common beliefs with respect to how consumers are being protected by this government.

I wish to draw to this minister's attention that she is now a member of a cabinet that has severely inhibited and severely damaged the rights of fee-paying parents who have put their children in day cares in this province, because she has discriminated against those consumers of that service by her policies, which specifically limit access to commercial day care.

I would also like to say that as the minister responsible for the Ontario Film Review Board, she has sat by silently while people are consuming offensive and explicit X-rated videos in this province.

The fact that the cabinet has her hands tied wo