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

April 29, 1993

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

LIVING ARTS WEEK

PLANT CLOSURE

LONG-TERM CARE

WASTE MANAGEMENT

CULTURAL EVENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

TENANTS

ARTHUR C. JOLLEY

WASTE REDUCTION

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

WASTE REDUCTION

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

WASTE REDUCTION

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

WILL FERGUSON

LABOUR RELATIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

LABOUR RELATIONS

COMMERCIAL CONCENTRATION TAX

GAMBLING

HIGHWAY LITTER

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

PUBLIC SAFETY

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

SHELTERED WORKSHOPS

ROLPHTON OPP DETACHMENT

HYDRO PROJECT

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

GAMBLING

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HYDRO PROJECT

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

RETAIL STORE HOURS

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

HYDRO PROJECT

GAMBLING

HYDRO PROJECT

GAMBLING

HYDRO PROJECT

BRUCE GENERATING STATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

EDUCATION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ÉDUCATION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOBS ONTARIO

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

Mr Tilson moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc / Loi prévoyant l'accès aux renseignements concernant les activités des Services d'information foncière Teranet Inc.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has 10 minutes.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Mr Speaker, this is a subject that has come up in this House when I was critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, it has come up in the standing committee on estimates and it has come up in the standing committee on public accounts. It has been discussed for some time over the last year and probably came to light when the television program The 5th Estate featured a story on this subject.

Although it deals with the computerization of our land registry system, the philosophy of my intent in making this bill is also to deal with situations where our government, the provincial government, enters into a partnership relationship with a private corporation and the fact that all of the affairs of that partnership are kept in confidence because of our privacy legislation.

I will briefly give the history of how Teranet Land Information Services Inc arose in the land registry system. The purpose of it is, as I have indicated, for the computerization of our land registry system in the province of Ontario.

The registry system was started, as I understand it, in 1795 and the land titles system was started in 1895. For over 150 years in Ontario, these systems have protected our rights in property. Of course, the volumes of real estate transactions have increased over that period of time and consist of manually searching old, dusty, abstract books in the registry offices around this province.

I believe it was in the 1970s that the Ontario government recommended major reforms to improve the recording service and access to land records and the distribution of land records. Finally, it was proposed by the then Conservative government that there be a program called Polaris, which is the province of Ontario land registration information system, which had the following objectives:

To convert all properties to a land title system to eliminate the extensive 40-year search requirement; to create a province-wide map index to locate each known property in Ontario; and to automate the land records system to allow searching by computers and to increase the use of microfilm to reduce document storage requirements.

The computerization of this system, I think, was favoured by all. All three parties, the people who use the system, the lawyers, the public, the surveyors, they all supported it. Where the difficulty occurred, it was decided by the subsequent Liberal government to enter into a private partnership arrangement and this occurred, as I believe, in 1988.

I have spent some time on my allegations of improper tendering practices by the government in creating that concept, but that's not the purpose of this bill, because at that time there was a strategic alliance concept which was developed and approved and announced in a request for a corporation that would form a partnership with the province. The corporation that won the tender was a company called Real/Data and it formed a partnership with the province of Ontario. It is that company, Real/Data, known as RDO, which I submit used the privacy legislation to block the province from releasing the information in the whole computerization of our land registry system.

This concept, I fear, can spread into other things. I believe that it can spread into such things as the plans for the casino gambling project in the city of Windsor, that partnerships can be entered into and we won't know who these people are. We won't know who the shareholders are, we won't know anything of the financial relationship. We won't know who the province of Ontario is doing business with. We won't know what that business is.

Of course, this is a very complicated subject because of the privacy legislation, the whole subject of the registry system. Most people don't even know what that is and in that respect it has created a major problem, I submit, in knowing what the province is doing.

RDO entered into a lucrative partnership agreement with the Ontario Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and this was the big money project. This is the only ministry, other than perhaps Treasury, that makes a profit, and it's essentially given it away to a private corporation called Teranet, which is partially owned by RDO and by the province of Ontario.

But we can't find out what they're doing. After political pressure from this side of the House, from the press, that information came forward very reluctantly, involuntarily, and there's still all kinds of information that needs to come out.

That is the intent of introducing this bill, and I will refer members to a wonderful

article that was written by Peter Moon of the Globe and Mail several days ago in which he summarized the most recent problem where part of the partnership arrangement was to keep the terms of the partnership secret for ever, so that the dealings of the provincial government with our land registry system are going to be kept secret in this province for ever, and a most difficult position.

One of the terms we were finally made aware of was that RDO was to put up a certain amount of money to honour that contract, and it has been discovered that it hasn't been able to do that, it hasn't been able to get the funding. To quote from Mr Moon's article:

"RDO put up an initial $5 million but failed to meet a scheduled payment of $4 million last October and another one of $10 million in January. The contract gives RDO a grace period of 120 days if it fails to meet a scheduled payment."

Mr Daniels, who's a well-known assistant deputy minister and who has assisted the members of the committee in this House on this topic throughout, has said they're technically in default on the October payment and they have until next month to meet the second payment. Then he made a rather astounding statement:

"Teranet's full-time workforce will not be reduced, Mr Daniels said, but on May 8 'a major gearing down' in the work

schedule will be implemented. It will include layoffs for much of Teranet's contract staff, he said.

"Mr Daniels said he could not identify the two Canadian firms interested in investing in RDO beyond saying they are major companies with the ability to make up RDO's $14-million deficiency."

Well, I'm sorry, Mr Daniels, but the people of Ontario want to know who you're doing business with, and that's been the problem with this corporation from the very outset. We don't know who we're doing business with. We don't know really what in the world -- how much the province has spent. Yes, we can look at estimates, we can watch the estimates process. We now know there's $14 million or $15 million that RDO is shy in making up its terms of the contract.

So the purpose of this bill -- and I look forward to hearing members of all parties, because this process was thought up by the Liberals and implemented by the New Democratic Party. I must say, for a party, the New Democratic Party, that normally opposes this sort of thing, opposes the whole issue of secrecy -- they want to know what in the world the province of Ontario is doing and where they're spending their tax dollars, particularly in a time when we're trying to cut back on our expenses.

I look forward to hearing the comments from the members of the New Democratic Party in government and the members of the Liberal Party, the creators of this corporation and this problem, but I also hope they will comment on the overall principle, because it's going to surface again whether it be in gambling casinos or whatever. It has nothing to do with whether you like or don't like gambling casinos. The question is, should the taxpayers know what the province of Ontario is doing with their tax dollars and should they know who they're doing business with? That is the real intent of this bill.

RDO has resisted efforts to know who owned the company until August of last year, as I said, when it released a list of shareholders to the Globe and Mail. But you notice who the list is? A lot of them are lawyers holding shares in trust for individuals, so we don't know who they are. We don't know whether they're the Liberals or perhaps members of the government. We're entitled to know these people because of our whole issue of conflicts of interest.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me to speak on this introduction.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member will have two minutes to reply when all parties have participated. The standing orders allow each recognized party in the House a period of 15 minutes to debate the item of business. Debate will proceed in the normal routine with the honourable member for Halton North.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm pleased to rise to speak to Bill 3 here today and I know the member for Dufferin-Peel is a very thoughtful member. However, since the legislation proposed by the member requests access to compatibility, sensitive and personal information about Teranet Land Information Services, let me begin by outlining the history of this corporation.

As members are aware, Teranet was incorporated in 1991 as a public and private sector partnership between the province of Ontario, as represented by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Real/Data Ontario, more commonly known as RDO. RDO is a consortium of Ontario firms specializing in surveying and mapping, computer mapping and management consulting. The member firms include Landata International Services Inc, a group of Ontario surveying mapping firms, Peat Marwick, Intergraph Canada, EDS of Canada Ltd and Systemhouse Inc.

Teranet was created after an extensive government selection process spanning some three years. The corporation was formed to accelerate the implementation of the province of Ontario land registration and information system, commonly known as Polaris, and in turn to use this automated land registration system as a basis for an Ontario-based, land-related information system industry.

The partnership was rigorously reviewed both internally and externally to ensure business, legal and financial safeguards. The agreement provides for 100% government control and ownership of both Polaris and all land registration systems information. The government also controls the use, access to and fee structure of all land registration data. Bill 3 calls for disclosure of all records related to Teranet for the 1991 agreement with RDO, despite anything in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

As the former Chair of that standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, I oversaw the review of that act, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and indeed I have some serious concerns about the legislation proposed by the member for Dufferin-Peel. I believe Bill 3, quite frankly, advocates a dangerous precedent. Forcing disclosure of competitive, sensitive and personal information from Teranet, I believe, erodes the basic principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and sets up a discriminatory situation just for one company.

The freedom of information act sets the rules for disclosure of third-party information which the government has in its custody. It requires competitive, sensitive information to be kept confidential if disclosure would cause harm.

The procedure identified for making recommendations about amendments to the act, including disclosure rules for commercial information, is a comprehensive review process set out in

section 68 of the act. This is the process in which I participated while Chair of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly. What I found out through my involvement with that review process is that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is working extremely well. While there may be some glitches in the act, it is still in fact working well. It strikes a balance, I believe, between the right of access to information and the protection of personal privacy.

In the case of Teranet, the joint venture agreements have been released to the requesters, with severances for third-party information, which must be kept confidential by the ministry according to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. As members are aware, the act allows a requester to appeal a decision of any institution defined in the act. An appeal is presently under way with respect to the decision of the Teranet documents.

The parties to the agreement have agreed to significant other disclosures, and the matter is currently under review by the freedom of information commissioner, in keeping with the procedures of that act. Bill 3, in my opinion, would put a different disclosure standard on Teranet. It will require all information about Teranet to be disclosed.

As I stated earlier, the legislation proposed by the member for Dufferin-Peel advocates, and I believe sets, a dangerous precedent. It would erode the basic and extremely important principles of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, which establishes that personal and commercial sensitive information should be protected. Weakening this right for one individual and one company would undermine the basic premises of the act and endanger all who look to the act for the protection of their privacy.

Bill 3 would also create serious inequities because the standard of disclosure it proposes would not apply to other companies the government has ownership in, but it is the overall issue of fairness which I must address. Individuals and companies must be treated equally and equitably under the act. We cannot make rules for one entity and not expect serious repercussions. We cannot allow the important principles of the act, including the principle of the protection of privacy, to be undermined by the attempt to apply a different rule to one individual company.

You have probably heard the adage "the exception makes the rule." I fear the proposed exception to Teranet would destroy the act itself.

In

summary, I believe Bill 3, by mandating disclosure of competitive, sensitive and personal information from Teranet only, would erode again the basic principle in the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and set up a situation with one company. The FOI act sets the rules for disclosure of third-party information which the government has in its custody. The act requires competitive, sensitive, commercial information to be kept confidential, and I believe disclosure of this information would cause harm.

I urge my fellow members of this Legislature to vote against Bill 3.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I must admit I start this debate with a great sense of humour of the fact that what I'm hearing from the government benches -- is this really the New Democratic Party? Is this the party which has always spoken about the need for openness in government?

The concept of computerization of the database of land registry is indeed very sound, and we should lead the world in this. I applaud that concept. Indeed, it was the Conservative government that originated this idea with the Polaris scheme. However, there's no doubt about it that there is a great deal of cynicism, and people are disgusted at the fact that this government is not prepared to release details. They have gotten involved with a company which apparently is not properly financed.

In fact, the other bidder on this proposal to computerize was a consortium which included the Royal Bank. The Royal Bank commented and the other group commented from the very outset that in fact the group that was awarded this contract was not properly financed and warned from the very outset that this was a danger. The government absolutely ignored that possibility and proceeded in this deal with people that we were not made aware of as to who the players were. We didn't know what the financial interests were, and yet government, in other words taxpayers', money was expended.

This deal has been investigated by both The 5th Estate and the Globe and Mail and commented on many times by my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel. There have been articles in the Financial Post and that stalwart which tracks this government, Frank Magazine. I would have to say that where there's this much smoke, almost inevitably there must be some fire.

The computerization of the land registry is the information equivalent of Ontario Hydro; that is how significant this deal is. Indeed, before the people of Ontario are forced to get into bed with the private sector on casinos, I think we have an entitlement to know who we're doing business with. If indeed we're going to be in joint ventures with Don Corleone, I think we should know about it before the people of Ontario wake up with a dead horse's head beside them, and that is the seriousness of this venture.

I would suggest that my colleague hasn't gone far enough. I would suggest that any joint venture that taxpayers' money is put into should be subject to the scrutiny of the public to see if the deal is in order.

As I started out by saying, it is indeed extraordinary that the NDP consistently in opposition, and to its credit, pushed for more freedom of information, but in government that has become just an illusion, because indeed when we apply for anything under the freedom of information, we get back documents where there is more black ink blacking out the real information than there is useful information. It is absolutely worthless.

So this government, which suggested in opposition that it had a higher standard and that it believed in full disclosure, is worse than the other two parties in government because indeed it has no intention of letting the taxpayer know what is happening. There has been every subterfuge to make sure that the taxpayers, and indeed the general public beyond taxpayers, the media, are not aware as to what the ownership of this consortium is.

The private part of the consortium, Real/Data or RDO, has missed the first payment that it was committed to and is very close to missing the second payment. The consortium has suggested that it is going to lay off significant numbers of staff and it's going to gear back, and indeed the government is now looking for other members to join the consortium. Private members, once again, were being given no details as to who these people are or what their financial contribution is. There is something smelly about this. As I said before, where there's this much smoke, undoubtedly there must be at least a little fire.

So why would the government not come clean and say yes, it is important that the taxpayers know where their money is going, make full disclosure and commit to bringing forward a bill which would ensure that all joint ventures that the government is involved in will be subject to full and open disclosure? It is appropriate.

I have heard in the past, when other governments have been in power here, all kinds of nonsense about the need for privacy. It is nonsense. There are times that the government legitimately wants to keep information to itself, but where it's entering into a joint venture with taxpayers' money and the private sector, it is appropriate that the public knows who they are dealing with, how much money is being invested and what the exposure is and the details of what competitive bids are.

We want to know, is it a bunch of government hacks and supporters who are in fact behind this, who are going to pocket money out of this deal? There is very, very serious credibility at stake here, and unless the government wakes up, smells the coffee and agrees to full disclosure, you will constantly be under suspicion, and you're under enough suspicion already.

With this I would say that I support the bill of my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel, who indeed brought this issue before the House some two years ago and has not let go and will not let go until this government comes clean with what the taxpayers' money is being spent on.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Mr Speaker, as you overheard me say a few minutes ago, hyperbole is one thing and bombast is really quite another. I find it very hard to deal quietly with some of the statements from the gentleman from York Mills because it bears no relation to reality and I think that I'd -- well, I could say a lot, but it would be wise to be politic, as they say, and polite.

The history of the land registry does in fact go back to the very beginnings of the province and provides a very good record of not only the settlement of the province but for historians and genealogists also provides a lot of family information. As someone who worked in that field for a few years, I do recognize the importance of the land registry beyond just the real estate issues that have been mentioned here today. So there are a lot of people who are interested in what is happening in this area, but it is used primarily by lawyers, surveyors, other professionals in the real estate industry.

Obviously the volume of those records that have accumulated over 200 years is quite substantial, and there are requirements. I think, as many people know if they've bought a home, there is a search required. The lawyers frequently don't do this themselves; they hire people to do the land searches, and that obviously adds to the cost of anyone's home, and there has been some pressure to simplify the process so that everyone has easier access and really and truly all of us better understand the system and can make better use of it. So by simplifying the process, we're really in fact achieving a number of cost savings.

I'm not sure if most of the audience here today or anyone viewing this particular session this morning would understand the term "retrospective conversion," but when you're in the process of taking paper records that have existed for many, many years, you do have to go through a complicated process of taking them from the paper record to some sort of machine record, and yes, that takes people, that takes time and it is complicated. People do have to understand the process.

So when the member for Dufferin-Peel talks about the fact that there is a number of companies which had come forward to raise an interest in doing this job, yes, it's something that possibly government doesn't want to do. There were a couple of bidders in the process and over time governments did in fact assess the business proposals that were put forward and made some decisions, but the product that was to come out of this was to the service of the greater good of the province of Ontario, all of the people living in the province of Ontario, who could conceivably make use of the products at some time.

I would like to let the audience know the kind of things that were going to be produced. The first one is a title index database. It is a computerized version of the abstract index and parcel register organized on a property ownership basis. It is immediately updated by an on-line registration function. It would be available for searching through computer terminals and printouts, not necessarily in the land registry office but in other locations. It would be accessible by property identification number, the address, the owner's name and instrument number.

If we take that particular product that would be developed, I think what all of us as citizens would have would be a very easy access point to the history of our particular land holdings, but also in the whole real estate transaction. This would simplify the matter and actually reduce the cost of the search that would be required.

The other product that was going to be developed was the property mapping database. It is a computerized property map file which displays survey fabric, property lines and unique property identification numbers, and would also enable paper copies of computer-generated maps to be available to the public.

I'm not sure what kinds of constituents would come to you, but I have a number of constituents who are very interested in what is happening in the community, neighbourhood groups interested in land development who really and truly make use of this kind of information and go out to citizen meetings and really ask very pointed questions about what is happening in their area. So I would see this as a boon to us all.

The member for Halton North raised a number of issues around the freedom of information act and I think he made his point very, very well. But I also wanted to raise the issue we heard in the standing committee on the Ombudsman during our investigation of that office, the review of that office over the last summer, as well as writing the report during the fall and winter.

I think anyone interested in seeing some of those comments should look at the report of that standing committee and look at the concerns expressed by business people, that the freedom of information commissioner allows greater access to information than they feel is necessary. What it means to them, as companies, is that their concerns are not treated in the same way as for an individual. But as a lawyer, I know the member for Dufferin-Peel recognizes that through the incorporation process of a business, what you do is create an entity which, in law, has to be treated the same way as you and I.

So under the freedom of information act, we do have to give all elements of society -- business and individuals -- the same protection.

A lot of information around this project has in fact been made available to the member for Dufferin-Peel. I believe he fully understands the ramifications of the freedom of information act, and I find it rather passing strange that, as a lawyer, he would be asking to change

an act in a way that would deal with individuals differently than companies. That's not something I personally can support. It would make it difficult for this government or any government to deal with legislation in that way.

So, like the member for Halton North, I will be voting against this particular piece of proposed legislation, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm pleased to participate in this debate on Bill 3. I want, first of all, to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for bringing it forward. It has been a labour of responsibility that he has carried forward from the very beginning when he became involved in this issue.

I don't think a member would bring forward such a responsible bill had it not been for the frustration caused by the failure of this government to table information about a private deal. There wouldn't be any need for this bill at all if the government were as forthright and open in its dealings on this one as it has been in some other areas. But the government has not come forward and stated the terms of the deal that exists between the government, under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and a private company.

I commend him for his initiative and I commend him for the way in which during the past at least two years he has stayed with the issue. I mean, it has not been easy. He has written letters to the minister. He has attended estimates in the Ontario Legislature trying to get information on a private deal between the government and a private company. To his credit, he has succeeded in at least obtaining the names of the shareholders and part of the contract. We would not even have that information today had it not been for the perseverance of this member.

The government has stonewalled the Legislature. The government has covered up this whole issue and refused to give an open, honest, clear statement to the Legislature on this issue. To that extent, it is wrong. For this government, which, with the Liberals back in 1985, came forward with its accord and said, "We are now going to bring forward the freedom of information act so that the public has access to information and dealings going on within the government," and this House approved the freedom of information act -- and now the government is using that same act as a shield protecting it from coming forward with all the facts.

I find it so reprehensible that here the pontificating NDP and the Liberals would have great support for the FOI and then, on the other hand, when we start looking for the background information, there is just no way in which the opposition can get this information. It's wrong, and we're at a point now where it will continue to be an issue unless the government begins to open up on it.

Therefore, we have Bill 3 before the House. Bill 3 really doesn't amount to anything more than a few lines. It just says it "overrides the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to provide for access to information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc, a corporation owned jointly by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and Real Data Ontario Inc."

All we're doing now is asking for the information to be tabled, and yet stonewalling is just continuing and we do not know anything more than we knew since we got just the names of some of the directors and some of the contract. It's fundamentally wrong in a democracy that the public doesn't have access to that information and we as their representatives are being prevented from doing our job because the government is saying, "Hey, it's private and secret." There is nothing like this that should be secret. It's a deal in which a company is going to make money -- once it gets past the $14 million it hasn't paid.

It is a profitable venture. It should be profitable. I'm supportive of the fact that the government wants to work with private enterprise.

This was signed by Peter Kormos when he was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that week, and in that process it was important for him to at least do it. What he did then was confirm the actions that had been previously put forward by Mr Sorbara.

I'm saying, what is the deal? How much money is in it by the government? What are the terms of the agreement? What are the specifics? What are the schedules? What is the full contract? Tell us the truth. The NDP came into this House after September 6, 1990, saying, "It will be an open government." All we're saying is, New Democrats, wake up to your promises. Understand that what you stood for then was to have open, honest government. All we're asking is to open the books. Show us the background of Teranet. Let us then together understand whether the deal is a good one or a bad one for Ontario. The police are investigating it. Let us have our chance to do our investigation as well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I think it's fundamentally important for me to stand up and to speak on this matter, and I'm glad of the opportunity to do that this morning because I think there need to be a couple of points clarified with respect to the issue at hand, Bill 3, the act that is being proposed by my good friend Mr Tilson.

Let me start off by saying that in principle, this act is supportable, or the initiative that is being undertaken by my colleague Mr Tilson is supportable in principle, that what's being asked for in this matter is the release of information relating to a contract, a partnership agreement between the government and a private enterprise firm, that being Teranet Land Information Services Inc, which is a company controlled by Real/Data Ontario Inc.

The matter is really: Should the public have full disclosure of the information that is being put together, the information regarding the actual contract, the contents of the contract, the details of the financial arrangements relating to this agreement?

I think there is a case to be made with respect to the fact that when a public entity, the government of Ontario, our governing institution, enters into a contract with a private sector firm to deal with what amounts to public information in a commercialized way, then there is merit -- in fact, good reason -- in having disclosure on the part of the government of Ontario to assure the public that in fact things have been dealt with in a proper fashion, that there is nothing untoward about the contracts that have been put in place.

Let's go back a little with respect to the process that was used in getting to the point where Real/Data was selected as the successful bidder. There's a chronology of events which led to the selection of Real/Data, and I think it's important to understand that the procedures that were followed were entirely appropriate. They've been outlined in this note I have, and I won't go through it step by step because there's very little time, but I want to make the point that various processes were used to ensure that this was a fair and accountable bidding process.

The public service was very involved in making the final selection. In fact, as the Liberal administration initiated this project, there were a number of decisions leading up to the final selection in the fall of 1990 and the early part of 1991.

If you recall, the election of 1990 saw the new government being sworn in on October 1. Following their swearing in, there was a cabinet review and strategic review of the selection process of the two final proponents that were involved in the bidding. Independent reviews were also -- and this is an important point -- conducted by legal advisers, financial advisers and chartered accountants. In February 1991, this new NDP government reaffirmed its position regarding the bidding process and reaffirmed that Teranet, or rather Real/Data was the successful bidder.

This process was not only sanctioned by a Liberal administration that saw this put in place, initiated it and undertook to request proposals to 20 firms at the time, back in 1988; there was an evaluation process conducted entirely by an interministry team; an arm's-length consulting firm was also part of this process; Management Board of Cabinet asked for a review of the terms of the negotiation, and so on and so forth.

There was an entire process that was followed that was systematic and very accountable, and the final selections were made on the basis of criteria that had been set out previous to the request for proposals.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, it is important to note that the final selection was made on a clearly established set of procedures that were followed to the very end and that in fact this process could be scrutinized and would stand up to the test of that scrutiny, so there's nothing really to hide here, there's nothing that could not be accounted for.

I would say, in speaking to Bill 3, the act that is being proposed, to get at the facts, to get at what have been described as sensitive pieces of information, sensitive because of the private nature of the workings of this firm that has been created in a joint partnership with the government, that this is a model for undertaking this kind of enterprise which should be held up, which should be supported, because I can say that in the future we need more of this.

We need private-public cooperation. We need a marriage between public institutions and private enterprise. We need to do that to accomplish the greater efficiencies in the future that we need in order to sustain our public efforts to make possible the kind of modern data access that we need. That's just but one example of the many kinds of cooperative efforts that we can see in the future.

I would hate -- for a moment, Mr Speaker -- I would very much dislike that this process continue to be questioned in the way it has, and to leave this cloud of doubt about what has taken place here.

Today, I want to stand in my place and say to you, Mr Speaker, and say to the government that this process should be held wide open for everyone to see because we need this marriage between public and private enterprise. We need more efforts like this, more initiatives like this, and we have to ensure that this selection process, that the entire methodology of this, can be held up to public scrutiny and that there be no doubt at the end of the day that things have been done properly and that people can be accountable for their actions.

I would support the efforts of my colleague Mr Tilson in this regard, simply because I want to ensure and reaffirm that processes, that efforts like this, can be, in the future, successful.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): This morning in private members' hour we're faced with what I think is an important issue. It's an issue of cynicism and an issue of rights, both the public right to know as well as individual and corporate rights to protection of personal privacy. I think the remarks of my colleague the member for Lawrence were very important to have on the record. He was absolutely factually correct in his historic chronology.

The events surrounding what became the Teranet land information system began back in 1988, and I must say to the members of this House and those who are watching that I was aware of and a party to those ideas that were then brought forward of a new concept of private and public sector partnership and participation in the development of a concept that could be marketed worldwide. It was an idea that hadn't been tried before in Ontario -- and remember, those were times when the economy was doing very well, when there was a lot of confidence in Ontario.

However, even at that time, the level of public cynicism was something that concerned me and my colleagues at the cabinet table. We were concerned about public cynicism, because as government attempted new approaches, those new approaches had to be open, in our view, to the highest level of public scrutiny if you were going to address those issues of public cynicism and concern about how government does its business. I've spoken in this House on the issue of cynicism on numerous occasions. The point I want to make is that the antidote to that cynicism, in my view, is accountability and openness.

I believe that the case that is before us and the request from Mr Tilson has a lot to do about that level of public cynicism. Mr Tilson in this House has asked numerous questions. They've always been tinged with a sense that something was wrong with the deal the NDP government actually entered into. That was the tone of his question, and it concerned me.

I'm aware of the chronology, as my colleague the member for Lawrence has put it forward. I know that when the government changed in the fall of 1990, the new NDP government, the leaders of that government, were also cynical and concerned about the integrity of the process of the contract letting. I know they commissioned outside experts to review that process to ensure its fairness, and I know it was after a review of that process, when they were confident that there was nothing untoward, nothing that anyone should be concerned about, that they were satisfied, the NDP, that the process that had been set in place by the Liberals was fair and open, and that they then let those contracts.

With that historical perspective in mind, they proceeded with what was conceived of as a new and an interesting idea for public sector partnership. Mr Tilson's questions, which were answered by the NDP government -- and as I say, his questions suggested cynicism. They defended those on the basis of the confidence they had that the process had been fair and that the process had been non-partisan.

Mr Tilson remains unsatisfied. The losing bidder -- and as you heard from my colleague, it came down to two people bidding on this contract -- has raised questions around the process and the integrity of that process.

It seems to me that in an era when we want to foster and support public sector partnerships, it is important that people have answers to those questions, that it appear and be so, that there is not only nothing to hide but that there is full accountability on these important matters of confidence, so that there will be a lowering of the terrible level of cynicism, and greater confidence in the integrity of those who are making important decisions.

I happen to be sympathetic to the right of Teranet to keep that information that they see as private and important to safeguard, and that's why the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act allows the freedom of information commissioner, where there is an overriding public interest, to release information to the public that it should have. I know that Mr Tilson and others have attempted, through that process, to get the information unsuccessfully.

While I express today my concerns about the precedent of overriding the protections of the freedom of information and protection of personal privacy legislation, my own view is that when government is involved we must tilt and err, if we are going to, on the side of greater openness and greater accountability.

It is of concern to me that the people of this province are cynical about the way government works. Anything we can do to enhance their confidence and lower the cynicism I believe is in the public interest.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Seeing none, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Tilson: I must say I find it ironic that two members of the New Democratic Party are opposing this legislation, and there may be more -- I hope not -- as I find it ironic that I'm about to read selections from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, the Tory reading this newspaper which in the past has supported the New Democratic Party, where the union which has supported you in the past opposes this philosophy.

I of all people, and the Progressive Conservative Party of all people, are not opposed to private enterprise entering into a contractual relationship with the government. Of course; we encourage that. However, we must be accountable to the taxpayer.

Millions and millions of dollars are being spent in Teranet and I, as a member of this Legislature, am unable to find out who is in this corporation. I'm unable to find out what money is being spent. I'm unable to find out where it's being spent or how it's being spent. I'm unable to ask questions about this latest development that RDO is short by $14 million. They're essentially in arrears. I'm unable to ask those questions. How preposterous that we, as legislators, can't even ask the directors or the officers of that corporation or the people who are running this corporation, spending public taxpayers' money, what in the world you're doing. We can't do that.

Don't get the impression that I'm opposed to private enterprise doing business with the government, entering into a partnership. As the member for Oriole has indicated, I think we support that. What we're opposed to is the secrecy. We are in favour of open government.

I think I have an extra two minutes, Mr Speaker, from our caucus's share of the time. I am going to refer to the March edition of the OPSEU News. They're concerned. They are concerned as to the secrecy and they talk about, "On March 2, OPSEU members working for Teranet Land Information Services Inc learned that private sector investors might default on $14 million in payments due."

Of course, Mr Daniels, the assistant deputy minister -- and again I emphasize we respect him; he's simply taking instructions from the can't even tell us who are the people who are interested in investing in this corporation. He can't even tell us the names of those people because of this legislation. Unbelievable.

"With Teranet, data on every property and land owner in Ontario is for sale.

"Large companies with computer expertise get preferential rates to search data. But real estate lawyers complain registry data will cost them more."

Now, that really is irrelevant to this bill, but it's a relevant question to ask in this House, and I can't get it because of the privacy legislation. I can't get answers to it. I have asked questions on that.

"Teranet's government perks include free office space and free title searching. Before Teranet or its subcontractors move in, separate offices are set up to create the database. Then the offices go on line and all new transactions are done on the computer." I can't ask questions on that. I can't get into that.

That's the reason for this legislation. We, as legislators in this province, are entitled, as the members of the New Democratic Party said over and over and over to the Liberal government and the Conservative government when they were in opposition: "We want accountable government. We want to be accountable to the people of Ontario." Well, you're not being accountable, and that's the purpose of this legislation.

And yes, it does open the door to other things, and I give you the example of gambling casinos. I'll bet you a loony that when the gambling casino legislation comes forth, you're going to have a private deal with Donald Trump or Jimmy Connors or whoever those people are and we won't know what it's all about.

The Acting Speaker: The time for ballot item number 3 has now expired. We will deal further with this ballot item at 12 noon.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

Mr Mills moved second reading of Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la municipalité régionale de Durham.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Mr Mills, the honourable member for Durham East, has 10 minutes.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): First of all, I would like to welcome to the chambers today the mayor of Newcastle, Her Worship Mayor Diane Hamre. Sitting next to her is Dennis Hefferon, who is a special solicitor to the town of Newcastle who has assisted in the drafting of this bill with Legislative Assembly help, and I'd like to welcome Mr Hefferon.

At first blush of this bill, you'd say to yourself, "Why are we changing the name of Newcastle to Clarington?"

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Yes. why are we?

Mr Mills: If the member for Etobicoke West admits that he still remembers Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, if he's old enough, and "Who's on First Base?" this is really something about what this change is about, because if I can just enlighten the members, we have the town of Newcastle, we have the village of Newcastle, we have the town of Bowmanville, and people come into the fine municipality that I'm privileged and honoured to represent and they say they're looking for Newcastle, the town of Newcastle, and people say: "No, you've got it wrong.

You mean the village of Newcastle." So they go down to the village of Newcastle and they say, "I'm looking for the town of Newcastle," and they say: "No, you've got it wrong. You mean Bowmanville. That's what you're looking at." So it really goes back to Bud Abbott and Lou Costello, like "Who's on First Base?"

Anyway, having arrived at this difficulty over a number of years, it was finally put at the last municipal election on November 12, 1991, and the question was put on the ballot in the form of a referendum, "Are you in favour of retaining the name of the town of Newcastle?" The majority of ballots answered that question in the negative, that is, 7,806 of the good people of the region said, "No, we want a change."

The yes vote was 5,492 who didn't want it changed, and that's for obvious reasons. You know, parochially, people, their grandfathers and before them lived in Newcastle, they like Newcastle on their birth certificate and they like Newcastle on their grandchildren's birth certificate, or Bowmanville, whatever it may be, and they're a little bit reluctant to have the name changed. However, the people spoke, and her worship took it on as the first order of business in that inaugural meeting to deal with this very problem, as she promised to do.

So the general purpose and administration committee met and they placed an advertisement in the local newspapers, calling to receive nominations for individuals to sit on that committee. If we talk about open government -- I've heard the other people over there on about it this morning -- this was the most open process that any municipality could ever do to come about it fairly with this name change.

Let me just get to the proper note here about the committee makeup. They selected individuals to appear on this committee from ward 4, ward 2, ward 3 and a representative from the Northumberland and Newcastle Board of Education, the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Newcastle Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

These fine people -- Malcolm Hamon, Cathy McKeever, Don Gilhooly, David Wing, who acted as chair, Geri Bailey, Ron Hope, Shirley Robson and Caroline Burke -- went about the process of listening to the people about the new name.

The committee went around the municipality. They went to every corner: Bowmanville, Mitchells Corners, Enniskillen, Wilmot Creek, Hampton; public schools -- Orono public school, Kirby, Newtonville, Newcastle and in Bowmanville, and these meetings were the process to select the name.

They came up with a few names that they thought would be appropriate, and the gist of this exercise was not to retain any connection with the name of Newcastle, because we've gone through that before. So the names that were selected for preference were Applewood, Clarington, Darlington, Darlington Mills -- which I like very much -- Orchard Mills -- which is my second choice -- and Pineridge. They went around to all these communities and talked about all of this, and finally the name change committee made the final selection, not Darlington Mills but Clarington, and this was announced on October 6, 1992, to the council.

This struggle hasn't been without effort, and of course the region of Durham became involved in this because it had to give its approval. The region of Durham advised the Honourable David Cooke, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, that it approved of the changes as requested in regard to the name of the municipality being changed to Clarington, and that the description of the corporation and its name be changed from "town" to "municipality" and that the municipality have the same rights, powers and duties as a town municipality under the law.

So it went to council and it was unanimous, the name change selection of Clarington. It went on to the next tier of government, the regional government of Durham, and it was unanimously approved there. It's gone through to the Newcastle -- well, presently, until it's changed -- hydro commission, and it made a motion to adopt the word Clarington. So you can see, Mr Speaker, that this bill, this name change, has gone through many, many hoops and hurdles to get where we are today.

I want to talk a little bit about the cost of this, because I know that perhaps some people are very interested in what this is going to cost. I must say that the costs of this, the entire name change process, that is, the committee, was carried out at a cost of $4,657, which came in well under budget. There was a budget of $7,450, and obviously they are a very astute group of people to spend the taxpayers' money so frugally and to achieve what they set out to be, so cost-conscious.

Isn't that awful? I had all my papers in order and now I'm stumbling.

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Do you want some of mine?

Mr Mills: I gave them to the opposition and I can't find them myself.

The region of Durham has said that the cost -- and I'm going from my memory -- for this name change, as far as it could see, would be minimal, and as far as the town of Newcastle, the cost of the entire operation is estimated to be at about $90,000.

I've got about a minute or so, Mr Speaker. I would be remiss if I didn't thank all the people who helped in this process. In particular I would like to single out the efforts of Linda Bruce from the town of Newcastle clerk's department and what she gave to this process: her organizational skills and hard work. The task was run smoothly, and in all my time that I've spent on municipal council before coming here I've never seen a process that ran so smoothly as what happened out there. It just seemed to tick right along in a wonderful way.

I look forward to third reading of this bill so that we can finally put the stamp of Clarington on our community. I see it as a new era for the region, something to go forward with. We have all kinds of serviced industrial land in, now, the town of Newcastle that's very appropriately located close to Highway 401, and I would suggest that if there are any companies or businesses that are looking in, they should consider the move to the new Clarington in the region of Durham East because they have fine access to Highway 401 and all those big buildings they build there will draw attention to their business.

I thank you for the time and I look forward to the support of my colleagues, not only from my own party but from my colleagues and friends from the opposition parties. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable member for Durham East will have two minutes to sum up. All recognized parties now in the Legislature do have 15 minutes to participate in the debate. Further debate?

Mr Eddy: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's a pleasure for me to rise in support of Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, whereby the town of Newcastle's name will be changed. I support it wholeheartedly because I see it as a local matter being decided in a local forum by local people, and that's very important.

My only concern and regret is that this bill is not being sponsored by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, because I see it as a wonderful opportunity for the ministry to be an advocate on behalf of local government rather than imposing rules and regulations and changes on local government, as so often is the case.

I think it was an opportunity missed by the ministry and, although I realize there may be other municipalities that might come forward with proposed changes, I see nothing wrong with that and so I'm disappointed that the ministry is not furthering this matter and indeed promoting and presenting the bill. However, I hope the minister and the other members who are attached to that ministry would indeed approve of this bill.

The matter goes back, of course, to the formation of regional government in the region of Durham. It's some 20 years since the county of Ontario, the united counties of Northumberland and Durham were dismantled and municipalities were given and dispersed among other municipalities. I recall that two townships were sent to Simcoe county. I don't know that either party was happy with that. A municipality was given to the county of Peterborough, I believe, one to the county of Victoria, and out of the remains, the regional municipality of Durham was erected and the present county of Northumberland.

I must hasten to add that I was disappointed with the imposition of centralization of government in local areas by previous Tory governments without enough local input, because if that had happened, if there had been more local input and liaison and discussion, I don't think we would be discussing this bill today. Indeed, the opportunity would have been given to municipal officials, municipal leaders and indeed community leaders, to deal with the matter at the time, but I'm very pleased to see what is happening today.

We experienced the centralization of local government and indeed the centralization of the education system without very much or any local input by previous Tory governments. The other matter that rises to mind, of course, is the government of those days not promoting the decentralization of provincial services and indeed the relocation program whereby services would be in other communities.

I think that's very important, and indeed the government of the day is not proceeding with those programs. Many promises are being broken to many local municipalities today, including to a city in my area, the city of Brantford. Demoralization and great resentment have happened in many areas that were dictatorially, in some cases, reorganized and centralized.

I well remember the day when an outstanding municipal official, Mayor Victor K. Copps, chained himself to a pillar over here in an attempt to get the Tory government of the day to be reasonable about the imposition of regional government in Hamilton-Wentworth. As a locally appointed official in those days at that particular time, I well know the alienation, the resentment that was caused and demoralization.

I think this is making great progress. It's long overdue, the proposal that the people of the area and of the communities and the elected council are proposing. I must compliment the mayor, who is present, her worship Diane Hamre, and the council and indeed the community leaders for handling this matter and indeed coming forth with a very excellent proposal.

Living in a local community with so many local names, as I do, I well realize the importance of being able to determine where you are at any given time. I shouldn't get lost in parts of my riding, but I will tell you how confusing it is where you have a number of townships and a number of urban municipalities thrown together into a new municipality, and sometimes with a new name, as is happening here, which is an advantage, or sometimes with one of the old names of a particular area.

You travel about and you see signs for this concession and that concession, but it is most confusing because you need to know, along with the concession, what former municipality it was in. It's a great problem in rural areas, and perhaps you've experienced it yourself, Mr Speaker, if you've travelled in some of the areas in regional government.

The only question I had about this bill was using the name "the municipality of Newcastle" rather than the term of a municipality, such as a town, village, township, city or indeed borough. I guess there is one borough left in Ontario. I had understood that all municipalities of course use the name "municipality of," but there was a designated term. It does not really affect my thinking in supporting the bill, but it is a point that I think may have been considered, and I would ask the honourable member for Durham East maybe to just speak to that if it has been examined and looked at, because it is important.

The forced centralization of local government has caused great alienation across the province in many areas, as I've said. I happen to live in a county, a local municipality in the old county system, and I always felt that system of government was kept outdated and antiquated because the province of Ontario, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs in particular, would not update the legislation to permit counties to do those things that the county council and indeed the elected councils of the local municipalities might decide to do and would want to do and did want to do on a cooperative basis.

The answer always was, "We will not update the county system because the entire province is going to be regionalized."

The entire province was going to be regionalized, and those were the plans of the former Tory governments.

What happened, of course, is they started to lose seats across the province of Ontario, and they came to the conclusion that if they proceeded with the forced centralization of local government in forming regions and restructured local municipalities, putting so many of them together in many areas without, in my opinion, enough local input to be accepted by the local people -- it had to stop, and it did stop. There are some municipalities that, I'm pleased to see, have survived with the old system.

The problem is, the legislation should be updated. Counties, indeed all municipalities, including the new municipality, should be given the right to do those things that they wish to do, decide to do, the elected representatives decide to do, unless they're specifically prohibited from doing it by law. The legitimacy of the right of local governments to make local decisions for local people, I think, should be clearly stated and indeed should be agreed to by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, which could and should take leadership on this important matter.

People in local communities feel abandoned by governments. They are alienated. There must be ways that we can bring the feeling that government is on the side of the people back to the people. It's particularly noticeable these days with what is happening in our province. Of course, I have to mention, when you talk about demoralization, the constant realization by local people of what they individually owe because of provincial and federal debt, and indeed many people have personal debt, so it is a great concern.

So I would like to see, and I'd certainly lend my support to the ministry to proceed with, rather than having such restrictive legislation for municipalities, opening it up to let counties or any municipality do those things that the elected councillors would like to do, including a change of name for whatever reason, and there are certainly very good reasons to let them decide those things.

County governments in the past begged the ministry to change legislation to allow them to have water and sewer services on a county-wide basis. It wasn't permitted. It was only permitted, of course, when the county system was replaced in certain areas by the regional system of government, which made so many changes all at once.

Personally, I think progressing slowly over a number of years is much better than passing a bill that establishes a restructured form of government, puts a number of municipalities -- in some cases many municipalities -- in together, sometimes with no community of interest, imposes the form of local government, and then takes most of the services to the upper tier, which of course is indirectly elected, and that's fine if local people feel that indirect election is preferable. I think those things must be looked at and must be changed.

So it is with pleasure that I support the town and advise all those in this House that we certainly support the bill wholeheartedly.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Dave Johnson (Don Mills): Mr Speaker, perhaps just a couple of housecleaning items to start with. I'm delighted to be the first to welcome the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton to this side of the House. You can see he's sitting beside me. The only question I had in my mind was, I didn't realize I had the option to sit there myself when I was newly elected to this House just a couple of weeks ago. I think you get quite a good view.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): You've still got that option.

Mr Dave Johnson: I still have that option, do I? Actually, I like it right here, though. The other question was that we're not sure if we have enough room over here to accommodate all the potential requests that we see coming up in the near future.

Secondly, I really didn't have much critical to say. I guess this is a golden opportunity to be critical, but I really didn't have anything critical at all to say of this particular bill. Perhaps the member for Brant-Haldimand has made a couple of comments that I might just make a few observations on right at the outset with regard to local municipalities having a say over local decisions.

I certainly, coming from a local municipality, agree with that. In very strong terms, I agree with that direction and I would hope that the honourable member and his party and the party on the other side, the government, would agree with that as we deal with Bill 7, which will be coming before us next week apparently, because in terms of Bill 7, a waste management bill, there are certain issues, certain responsibilities, that municipalities will be dealing with, where the authority has essentially been taken away from local municipalities and delegated to regional municipalities.

Regional municipalities certainly need powers as well; there's no question about that. But I think we need to make sure that the balance of power is appropriate, and I think the honourable member for Brant-Haldimand would agree with me that Bill 7, as it's phrased in its present form, doesn't give the local municipalities the say that they should have. So I'll be interested in his remarks when that issue comes forward.

In terms of centralization, the member again has outlined a problem in his region. I can only say that in this region of Metropolitan Toronto, the centralization has worked well over the past number of years. Metropolitan Toronto, being formed in 1954, was put in a position to provide services for the people of all the municipalities in Metropolitan Toronto, some 13 municipalities at that point in time.

Reorganization occurred in 1967, which affected my own municipality in East York being created from the township of East York and the town of Leaside. Although there was certainly some resistance at that point and while some people still fondly look back on the situation before 1967, I think from the vantage point of where we are now, most people would agree that centralization did work in Metropolitan Toronto.

It did give a proper balance of power between the region, between the local municipalities, and created local municipalities of an efficient size that they could deal with the issues that we've had to deal with over the past number of years. So I think there's a counterexample in terms of what the member for Brant-Haldimand was speaking of.

Getting directly to the bill that the honourable member for Durham East is introducing, I am pleased to support him in this endeavour. The member has raised the problems that have been encountered through the years with Newcastle being formed from the town of Bowmanville, the village of Newcastle, the township of Clarke and the township of Darlington. There has been confusion with regard to who lives where or where people are to be directed or that sort of thing, and this is something that's come to the point that it certainly has to be dealt with.

Again, from my background, I understand that sort of confusion. I mentioned previously that East York was formed from the township of East York and the town of Leaside, and there are still people today who think in terms of the township and the town, as opposed to the borough of East York. I can well understand, when people give directions to the town, that they may be thinking of Bowmanville or they may be thinking of Newcastle, and there could well be confusion.

So this is something that was raised and had to be dealt with. I was pleased, as the member for Durham East has pointed out, that there was a very open and honest, aboveboard and proactive municipal involvement, leadership, in this whole issue, that it involved all the people from the town of Newcastle. They decided upon a referendum. This was, I believe, in 1991, during the municipal election, and the question at that point was, "Are you in favour of retaining the name of 'town of Newcastle'?" The returns that came back were 7,876 no, 5,492 yes. Obviously, that reflects a couple of things. That reflects that the majority of the people were definitely in favour of a change.

It also reflects the fact that this was not an easy decision. I know, having spoken with the mayor just previously today, that she had some concerns herself, and a great number of people obviously did have concerns. There's an emotional attachment to a name that people have identified with for many years.

I might say in that connection that the honourable member to my right-hand side was born in Newcastle, Newcastle upon Tyne, a few years ago, and I'm sure that in his mind there's that sort of attachment as well, as there would be an emotional attachment in the minds of the people from Newcastle. But notwithstanding that, there was a clear message, and the clear message was, "We need to have change."

I was very impressed with the process that the municipal council followed from that point in time. They did establish a name change committee to facilitate the public consultation. The council organized advertisements in the newspapers in April of last year. They advertised for nominations to sit on this committee. They finally decided upon a committee of eight people: six people, two from each ward within the city, and one person from the separate school board and one from the public school board, a total of eight people.

Those eight people, as I understand it, set up a committee, mailed a household notification to the residents within the town of Newcastle, sought suggestions, proposals, for the name change, a very open process, inviting all the people to participate. As I understand it, they did receive some 1,300 different suggestions. It must have been quite a chore to go through those and to decide upon the right direction.

In August of last year, the committee decided that it would put forward several names and again seek guidance. The names were Applewood, Clarington, Darlington, Darlington Mills, Orchard Mills and Pine Ridge. Those were the names that were put forward for the public again to comment on. Advertisements were placed in the papers. Residents of the town who attended the meetings were given an opportunity to cast a ballot for their favourite name, and the name that we're about to approve here today, Clarington, was selected in October of last year.

There has been some suggestion about the use of "municipality" as opposed to "town." I haven't researched this fully, but as I understand it, the way the act is recommended to be changed by the honourable member, the use of the word "municipality" would allow the former town, as it will be, to retain all its legal and financial status. That's fairly important. Out of this process, the town of Newcastle of course is not interested in losing any financial support in grants or other financial structures.

That's obviously most important to all municipalities in this day and age, and the way this is being set up, to call Clarington a municipality and the way the act is being amended, will account for that and will allow the municipality of Clarington to retain its financial position. Again, I'm in support of that.

The cost has been alluded to by the member for Durham East. They've apparently stayed within their budgets all along the way. The total cost is, I believe, fairly nominal considering the process they've gone through and the involvement of all the people. There again, I don't believe the financial issue is an issue whatsoever.

So in summing up, Clarington is a combination of the townships of Clarke and Darlington, and these were townships that I understand were created back in the early 1800s. Bowmanville was named in 1823. The townships, I think, were created about the same time. Actually, Darlington township was created in 1794, I believe it was, and Clarke township I believe was created just shortly after that, so there's a lot of history there between the two of them.

"Clarington" is a combination of the townships of Clarke and Darlington; it's an excellent choice. It's a choice that's supported by the council of the town of Newcastle. It's a choice that has involved all of the people of Newcastle in the selection process. I would simply offer my congratulations to the mayor, to the members of the town of Newcastle and to the people of Newcastle for going through a very civilized process and for making, apparently, a very wise decision.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate on second reading of Bill 6, the honourable member for DurhamYork.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a real pleasure to be here speaking on this bill today, because my colleague from Durham and I of course share part of Durham region, and there's my personal history: My family roots go right back into what has of late been called the town of Newcastle.

When my parents were young teenagers and moved to Courtice, of course it wasn't the town of Newcastle; they moved to Courtice. As you drove out of Oshawa, the first thing you came into was Courtice. Name changes must be a difficult thing. I've got nine brothers and sisters, so when my mom and dad tried to think of names -- they know it's a difficult process to pick names. When they were living in Courtice, about the middle of October in 1954 there was the terrible storm that struck all of southern Ontario.

As my father was driving my mother to the hospital to have a baby -- they had twins, as a matter of fact, girls -- I'm sure the name of the hurricane, Hazel, must have crossed their minds as a name for a girl, but Marilyn and Marie are the names that were picked for my sisters.

But they lived in Courtice at the time, not in the town of Newcastle. And then later on a few more of us came along and they had to leave the town of Courtice. I'm sorry, Madam Mayor, but they moved to Oshawa because they felt they needed to be somewhere on running water, because it was very difficult to pump a lot of water for all those diapers, so they moved to Oshawa.

But I remember going back to Bowmanville, the Bowmanville zoo. I'll tell you, when you've got nine brothers and sisters, a field trip like the Bowmanville zoo is a big thing. I'm sure the members of this House know about the Bowmanville Zoo, because Mr Tilley, with his famous hats, has done some advertising around the subject of the Bowmanville zoo. For those of you who don't know, one of the zoo-keepers there has lost his hat four times to the elephant but always recovered it, and it's still in fine shape, from what I hear.

Returning to Bowmanville once in a while, as you left the city of Oshawa and went into Newcastle, it was rather strange, because all of a sudden you drove into Newcastle, but you were going to Bowmanville and Newcastle is on the far side. It's really kind of confusing.

I remember growing up in the south end of Oshawa. For my very first date I took my wife over to the bowling lanes at the east end of Oshawa. Of course the bowling lanes are gone, burned down, and where those bowling lanes were was in Newcastle, which is really perplexing.

I've still got a lot of good friends who -- my best man lives in Courtice, and I've got a brother who lives in Bowmanville, not to be confused with Newcastle, because they are two different places. Anybody who knows Bowmanville would remember driving through, and on the south side of the road there's this bus that sells the best french fries you could ever ask for. I've gone to Hanc's many a time, taken my wife when I was dating, and maybe the odd time, when my mother worked in a nursing home around the corner, slipped in and grabbed some french fries to munch on while I was waiting for her to come out of work. Hanc's is quite famous.

Later on my mother did move to the village of Newcastle -- not Bowmanville, not the town of Newcastle, but the village of Newcastle -- to work in a nursing home. I recall one time going over there to get her keys, which she had locked in her car by mistake. I drove over there, and as soon as I left Oshawa I was in Newcastle. Then I drove through Bowmanville. Then I kept driving until I got to Newcastle -- quite confusing. The mayor has to be congratulated in changing this name and helping take some of this confusion out of the whole thing.

It's really got to be quite difficult for people when you tell them, "I live in Newcastle, and as soon as you leave Oshawa you're in Newcastle, but really you're not in Newcastle, you're in Courtice." When I was little and I returned to Courtice a few times, it was very small. Of course, there are a lot of people living in Courtice now; it's just incredible.

The whole thing is incredibly confusing, because what has happened now is that the town has decided, the municipality has decided, "Let's bring it together, let's give it a name, a name that people are going to be able to grow up with and remember." The people who live in places like Newcastle or Bowmanville today will still be able to remember where they live. They live in the municipality of Clarington but the village of Bowmanville.

It makes sense to me. I know my brother who lives in Bowmanville will like that, and I'm sure when his son or daughter is born this August, he's going to be able to take him or her to the Bowmanville zoo, which isn't in Newcastle any more but back in Bowmanville but never moved, in Clarington.

I just want to say to the mayor and to my colleague here that I think the name change is really a terrific, positive sort of thing. Every once in a while a little bit of common sense overcomes politicians and they start thinking, "Hey, this is maybe a little bit too confusing for folks and we're going to try to bring a little bit of common sense to this." So I want to thank my colleague here for allowing me to speak on this because, by golly, it's good to have a little bit of common sense in here once in a while.

The Acting Speaker: I want to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise today to speak just briefly on Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. When we look at some of the changes that have taken place across the province with regard to boundary changes, negotiations going on with regard to changes of municipalities and name changes, in Simcoe county at the present time all the county boundaries are changing and each one of these municipalities has to pick another name.

There is some confusion with regard to when you make name changes. I know you yourself, Mr Speaker, had a change made in the riding that you represent, I believe, by adding another name to it or something to that effect. When we look at these, there's no easy solution to the problem, because whatever you want to do, there are always a lot of people who object to it. I understand that in this case there were a lot of people who objected, although the vote was decisive that they did want the name changed from Newcastle. When I've talked to some of the people in that area, they agree with this bill. They want the change made because it's been an ongoing problem for many years.

Our party agrees with this bill. My friend Mr Mills has brought it forward. We're pleased that it's happened. But there's one thing they don't want to forget, and that is some of the heritage and history that's gone on in those small towns, because it's important that we keep that. Some 200 years ago -- we're celebrating this year -- John Graves Simcoe first came and developed the first Parliament, so we've got to look at the history of this province and of those small municipalities. We should not forget them.

I have a bill before the Legislature which I hope to bring forward this fall. It's a heritage bill. I'm looking to the third Monday of February as a holiday where we will stop and reflect on the past, think of the future and reflect back on the heritage we have. This is all part of it. I know there'll be a history done in the town of Newcastle. They will want to make sure that Darlington and Clarke and all those municipalities that were established there at one time by those names will continue.

When we look at the county of Simcoe, this year it's celebrating 150 years. In the 150th year, there are going to be approximately 16 municipalities that will be changing their names. When we look at the name changes, we also want to remember the heritage and the history of all these municipalities that were established many, many years ago, and make sure that it's documented and kept in a form that our ancestors and our grandchildren will see back in the history of this province when it was first established. I want to thank Gordie for bringing this bill forward.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the honourable member. Further debate, the honourable member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I rise today to speak on the private member's bill by my colleague the member for Durham East, Mr Mills. The bill is

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act. The purpose of the act is to change the name of the town of Newcastle -- we've heard this -- to the municipality of Clarington.

As you may recall, the member for Durham East introduced a private member's bill last spring on the subject of British pensions for former British residents. This was a bill that was of great interest to the people it affected. In fact, it was the first time ever that I have seen all of these galleries around here full in private members' hour. It was such a good bill that Mr Mills's office received inquiries from the government members in British Columbia and indeed in the federal government.

This new bill is also very important to the people it touches. It touches the very identity of their community. The member for Durham East is a member who always strives to lend a hand to as many people as he can. These two bills are an indication of this.

In 1973, through the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the town of the municipality of Newcastle was created, comprising the former towns of Bowmanville, the village of Newcastle, the township of Clarke and the township of Darlington. On November 12 in the year 1991, the people of the town of Newcastle voted in a referendum on the question, "Are you in favour of retaining the name, 'the town of Newcastle?'" A majority of the voters responded that they did not want to keep that name.

It was at that point that the council established the procedures to change the name and the public process started. Believe me, it was, as the member from Durham stated earlier on, a very democratic system, one that the town council and the regional council should be very proud of, of how they dealt with this. Over 1,300 responses were received by the committee and the committee picked six finalists. From that it went on, and at the October 26 council meeting, the name change to the town of Clarington was put forward, as chosen by the local residents.

In addition to this, throughout the consultation process, the name-change committee became aware of a great deal of confusion regarding the municipality's status, since Newcastle was referred to as a town. The name-change committee saw this as an opportunity not only to choose a new name, but also to clarify the status of this community. They went back to council, council worked on it with them and hence we now have a bill put forward to change it all to the municipality of Clarington, which is what the people of the area want.

Therefore, I wish not only to congratulate her worship the mayor and the council, but also Mr Mills for bringing this forward, because truly it is

an act of democracy and that is something we should all applaud.

The Acting Speaker: I wish to thank the honourable member for his participation. Further debate, the honourable member for Kingston and The Islands.

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I too am pleased to be able to support my colleague the member for Durham East on this bill. I think that he and other members have outlined very thoroughly the elements that have gone into consideration of this name change, that already it has been said that there has been debate within the community itself and then a mechanism set up to look at the replacements. I think that we'd all agree that this is a very democratic and reasonable approach to the name change.

However, I do want to speak to the issue of what it means to change a name. We speak of a personality of people, of course, which is what the term comes from, but we also refer to areas or cities having a personality. Apparently, my colleague the member for Scarborough East tells me, in England there is no problem referring to Newcastle upon Tyne and Newcastle under Lyme, and these two have enjoyed the same name or a similar name without that kind of confusion we have heard this morning has emerged in the member for Durham East's community.

They've arrived at this way of substituting the name, but of course, as has been raised, there is the issue of personality or the character and what that means to change a name, much as we can think of changing our own name. This was borne in upon me at a very young age when the school I was attending, called Moneta, was changed to Flora MacDonald, which was quite a change, and at that young age I didn't understand why the change was made. All I knew was that it was something much different from what I'd been attending. But after I attended Flora MacDonald for a few years, the identity of that name sank in and I was proud to be a member of that school.

I want to assure the member for Durham East that he can look to our area for guidance in this matter of how to cope with the change in name. After all, we've been in existence over 300 years and have gone through a couple of changes ourselves, When the area was first settled it was called Fort Frontenac, the area of habitation. A few years later it became Cataraqui, the name to designate that area, which I'm told by the members of the Cataraqui Friendship Centre is a native term referring to limestone. So again that's a physical feature that figures into the name.

The year 1788 was the first official designation of Kingston, and that is the name we know today, but if you look at Kingston it certainly has encompassed a variable history and a very rich history.

Kingston at one time symbolized, I would say, a very particular way of looking at the world -- a staid, say, conservative, militaristic background -- but now it's developing within that name. It's coming to signify a different outlook on the world, one that I think will be very beneficial, not only to our own area but to the province and wider boundaries as well.

I'm pleased to speak in support of the motion, and I wish the new municipality of Clarington the best of luck.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The honourable member for Yorkview.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It's Downsview that I have the honour of representing.

The Acting Speaker: I apologize -- for Downsview.

Interjection.

Mr Perruzza: Absolutely. However, I know that the riding of Yorkview is a very nice riding and it's well represented by my colleague Mr Mammoliti.

It's a privilege for me to rise today in support of Mr Mills's bill to change the name of Newcastle to Clarington. In the minute I have left to participate in this debate, I can't help but recall another debate in this Legislature where we were talking about renaming a particular riding. I remember the member for Bruce standing up that morning and delivering a very eloquent speech that talked about the signposts of history. Well, today I'm proud to be part of that movement in time where we make history.

I can't help but think that consolidating the towns called Newcastle under a new name is forthright and brilliant, and I can't help but think how Mr Mills is so forward in his thinking: a name that is totally and typically Canadian. I'm proud to speak of the new town of Clarington.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Durham East has two minutes to sum up.

Mr Mills: The congeniality that's in the House this morning for my bill: The only thing I may suggest is I hope the Premier's watching, or someone important's watching, and maybe they will let me introduce every bill in the House and then we could get some business done here.

Anyway, that jovial talk aside, I'd like to thank the member for Brant-Haldimand, the member for York Mills, the member for Durham-York, the member for Kingston and The Islands, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, and last but not least, the member for Downsview for their kind comments in the support of this name change.

I'd just like to bring to your attention a comment that the member for Brant-Haldimand brought up with respect to the term "municipality." I can just read from a letter from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It says: "With respect to the possibility of not including the term 'town' in the new name in favour of perhaps a more generic term such as 'the municipality,' I've discussed this suggestion with a number of people in the ministry. There does not appear to be any significant concern, provided the choice does not come into conflict with any current legally defined term such as 'district municipality.'" So I hope that answers the member's query there.

I think the mayor and the council should be commended for this positive thing they've done. It's not easy to do things, to change traditions, in face of lots of people who don't want it. You know, we're all faced, myself too, with people saying, "Well, you go through with this and we won't vote for you any more," but that is what politics is all about. Politicians have to make decisions for the best of their community. The mayor and the council have taken that decision upon themselves. I'm pleased also to be in the House today, this further step to the next tier of government, to do that on behalf of everyone whom I represent in Durham East.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Simcoe East on a point of --

Mr McLean: A point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Mr Mills mentioned everybody's name but mine and I thought he should remember that I was for it.

The Acting Speaker: It's not really a point of anything.

Mr Mills: Mr Speaker, I have a long-term friendship with the member for Simcoe East and I'd be very upset to not mention him, but it's a fact that he was not on my list when I wrote it. He jumped up unexpectedly, but I recognize him.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. We will now proceed with the two ballot items that were dealt with this morning.

TERANET INFORMATION DISCLOSURE ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 SUR LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS CONCERNANT TERANET

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Firstly, we will deal with ballot item number 3, the second reading of Bill 3,

An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc, by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Do we have any members opposed to having a vote on this ballot item? If so, please stand. Seeing none, we will now deal with ballot item number 3.

All those in favour of Mr Tilson's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members: a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1159 to 1204.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please resume their assigned seats. I want to remind all members that we are dealing with ballot item number 3 by Mr Tilson, the member for Dufferin-Peel, Bill 3,

An Act to provide for Access to Information relating to the affairs of Teranet Land Information Services Inc.

All those in favour of Mr Tilson's bill, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Cleary, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Drainville, Eddy, Eves, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Mammoliti, Marland, McLean, Perruzza, Poole, Rizzo, Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Tilson's motion, please rise and remain standing until identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Cooper, Duignan, Farnan, Frankford, Haeck, Harrington, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, Malkowski, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Waters, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 27, the nays are 22. I therefore declare the motion carried. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I move that this matter be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have agreement that this matter -- No. We now have to establish if there is a majority of members wishing to send this bill to the committee of justice. Those in favour of sending this bill to the committee of justice, please rise and we will have the Clerk conduct a count.

All those opposed to sending this bill to the committee of justice, please rise and remain standing for a head count.

I've been told by the Clerk that we have a majority in favour of the bill going to the committee of justice. It is therefore so ordered.

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM AMENDMENT ACT (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON), 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA MUNICIPALITÉ RÉGIONALE DE DURHAM (NEWCASTLE-CLARINGTON)

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 4, a motion by Mr Mills for second reading of Bill 6,

An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Durham Act.

All those in favour of Mr Mills's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to, for the purposes of the record of Hansard, state that this bill was unopposed.

The Acting Speaker: The motion is carried.

This bill is ordered for committee of the whole House.

It being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais encore aujourd'hui vous donner, et au gouvernement, en particulier au ministre de l'Éducation et de la Formation, des nouvelles de la population francophone de l'Ontario.

Je me permets de vous rappeler que la tutelle doit être vue comme une mise en veilleuse, pendant une courte période de temps, des droits démocratiques des parents en vue de régler une situation de crise financière ou autre. Dans le cas qui nous préoccupe, rien n'a été réglé. Les parents se demandent à quoi les conseillers scolaires qu'ils viennent d'élire peuvent bien servir. Ils se demandent quelle doit être leur relation avec le tuteur.

LIVING ARTS WEEK

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): In anticipation of Mississauga's new Living Arts Centre, the Mississauga Arts Council, together with Square One Shopping Centre, Eaton Sheridan Place and Erin Mills Town Centre, has dedicated April 23 to May 1, 1993, to be Living Arts Week.

This celebration of Mississauga's cultural vitality is an example of how the arts can thrive when arts organizations, businesses and government work together. Funding for Living Arts Week comes from the three malls, the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation and the city of Mississauga.

Living Arts Week special events include a concert by the Mississauga Symphony Orchestra, dance demonstrations, musical performances by several ethnic groups, a demonstration by celebrity painters, a seniors day featuring the talents of our seniors and the presentation of four arts films at the Dollar Cinemas.

I would like to express our community's deep appreciation for the tremendous efforts and vision of Bruce Heyland, chair of the Living Arts Centre. Under Mr Heyland's leadership, the Living Arts Centre has acquired talented administrative staff and is coming closer to reality through successful operational planning and fund-raising.

I encourage the members of the Legislature and everyone who shops in Mississauga to visit Square One, Eaton Sheridan Place and Erin Mills Town Centre this week. Come enjoy the marvellous displays, demonstrations and performances which showcase the artistic talents of Mississauga's diverse population.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): On May 1 the General Motors van plant will be closing after over 40 years of service in Scarborough. When the plant opened in 1951, it manufactured Frigidaire appliances. It later produced parts for the GM auto industry under the Delco name. It was then retooled as the GM van plant to begin production in 1972.

Almost 3,000 jobs will disappear with this closing. This number does not include the thousands of other spinoff jobs that will be affected, like truck drivers, like parts manufacturers, like retail workers. The economic impact will be catastrophic to Scarborough and indeed all of the greater Toronto area.

The personal impact has an even greater effect. Many workers have worked their entire work lives there. Families are torn apart as workers must search other communities for job opportunities and as the stress of unemployment takes its toll.

The responsibility for this devastating closing rests on the shoulders of the federal Tories and their ill-conceived free trade agreement. Already in Ontario tens of thousands of manufacturing jobs have been lost under the free trade agreement, and if NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement, goes through, thousands more will be gone.

This Saturday a rally in support of the Scarborough van plant workers will be held in front of the plant at 1901 Eglinton Avenue East, just east of Pharmacy Avenue, at 1 o'clock in the afternoon. I know that many of you will want to show your support. This plant is located in the provincial riding of Scarborough West, and I know that Anne Swarbrick has been working tirelessly, as the member for Scarborough West, to help bring this to a more positive resolution. Unfortunately, the federal Tory trade policies have made that an impossibility.

I know that you'll want to --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): On a number of occasions I have stood in the House to bring to the attention of this government the need for an extended care facility in Dryden.

I've pointed out the implications of having a facility some two hours away, the separation that this brings to families and the hardships and heartache that follow. Residents of Dryden see the rules of long-term care changing on a daily basis and actually have come to the conclusion that this government is out to make the whole issue complicated enough that the people of Dryden will eventually give up their fight for a home to keep their elderly in the community.

Mr Speaker, I can certainly tell you and tell both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the new Minister of Health that this is not the case. Ministers, the administration of Patricia Gardens has just received news that changes are being considered in regard to the services that it offers. They have been told that their designation may become a supportive living facility. Common sense only dictates that such a move will only increase the need for an extended care facility, and I urge both ministers to become involved in this planning to ensure that the needs of Dryden's seniors are met. The citizens of Dryden deserve no less.

I have developed a package for both the Minister of Community and Social Services and the Minister of Health relating some of the issues that have been involved up until today on this issue.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement's for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. It concerns Bill 7,

An Act to amend certain Acts related to Municipalities concerning Waste Management.

Minister, your NDP government and the former Liberal government appear to delight in playing games of give and take with municipalities across Ontario when it comes to the issue of waste management. In 1989, the Liberal government passed

an act to amend the Municipal Act, which gave municipalities power over waste management and directed them to establish waste management plans. Just two years later, this government gave the Environment minister power to unilaterally dictate waste management procedures that had traditionally and legally been overseen by municipal governments.

Now the same government is tossing a bone back to the municipalities in the form of Bill 7, which gives them a semblance of legislative authority to implement programs and strategies geared towards waste reduction. Unfortunately, Bill 7 is just one more example of the NDP government's practice of downloading new programs without providing any necessary funding.

Your government's unacceptable practice of increasing the number of mandatory programs while reducing financial contributions is backing municipalities into a pretty tight corner where they will be forced to cut existing services and raise taxes.

On the same note, the cuts in the conservation authorities -- $138,000 in the Nottawasaga Valley Conservation Authority -- are a matter that you're not taking full responsibility for.

CULTURAL EVENTS

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): On Friday, April 16, I attended in Peterborough the world première of Ernest, a musical adapted from the play The Importance of Being Earnest by Oscar Wilde.

I want to heartily congratulate the Peterborough Theatre Guild on this production. The music by Bryan Jackson and the lyrics by Janet Fridman were excellent. Director Gillian Wilson and all her production staff did a wonderful job. The cast was superb. The choreography, lighting and set design were all well done. The fine piano accompaniment by Susan Taylor provided the finishing touch.

The Peterborough Theatre Guild is hosting the Theatre Ontario Drama Festival this year, from May 19 to 23. There are five entries from the Theatre Ontario Drama Festival. Companies will be coming from Ottawa, Thunder Bay, North Bay, Port Perry and Elmira.

A highlight of this event will be a visit of the Yokohama Theatre Institute from Japan, which will stage a performance. This is a return visit, as the theatre guild took Bea Quarrie's production of Hedges, written by Peterborough's Dave Carley, to Japan in 1990.

The theatre guild sets a high standard of dedication and achievement. Thanks and congratulations to all those involved.

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): On Tuesday the Minister of Transportation said in this House that he wanted to weigh carefully all aspects before reintroducing the Liberal bill to allow longer trucks in this province. He said he didn't want to make a hasty decision.

Well, the minister has had two and a half years to make up his mind, and while he has been dithering for years on end, 200 trucking firms went bankrupt in 1991. Last year 188 freight companies closed in this province, with a significant job loss for Ontarians. It's obvious the trucking industry in this province is hurting; it's hurting badly.

My concern and the concern of the Liberal Party is for jobs. How can we help Ontario business people compete internationally and thereby protect and increase jobs? Longer trucks are used almost everywhere in North America. They will save Ontario shippers $100 million a year, making them that much more competitive with US firms and other firms in this country.

Minister "and it's unfortunate he's not here --

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Algoma.

Mr Daigeler: "you have a golden opportunity to save jobs. You have a golden opportunity to help an important sector of the economy without cost to the taxpayer. Introduce legislation now that will put Ontario trucking companies on a level playing field with other provinces and states.

BUSINESS IN ONTARIO

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): On Monday of this week, the Premier responded to a question from my colleague the member for Markham by quoting out of context the words of Ron Foxcroft, the president of Fortron International Inc, the creator of the Fox 40 whistle and one of Ontario's most outstanding business success stories of the last five years. The Premier said that Ron Foxcroft was returning one of his companies to Ontario after a year's absence because of the better business environment in this province and the Premier suggested that this was the result of his labour bill, Bill 40.

On behalf of Mr Foxcroft, I should like to set the record straight. A year ago, Ron Foxcroft established a new company in Tonawanda, New York, where he was warmly welcomed. This he did precisely because of the NDP's labour legislation and at a time when public support for the NDP was still holding. He did not move any of his other highly successful companies from Ontario.

Ron is moving back to Ontario now because he believes: "The NDP government in Ontario is finished and Bill 40 will be repealed by 1995 as promised by Mike Harris, leader of the PC Party of Ontario. Bill 40 has discouraged investment and created a bigger wedge between business and labour."

This is hardly a glowing endorsement of Bob Rae's labour legislation or his record of management of Ontario's economy by one of the leaders of Ontario's business community. According to Mr Foxcroft, why should companies doing good for Ontario be run out by Bob Rae? Companies should remain here to drive out Bob Rae.

TENANTS

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I wish to tell the people of Ontario about a very exciting and much-needed process that is happening right now across Ontario. This process is called Planning Together. It is the bringing together of tenants of Ontario Housing Corp with the local housing authority and community agencies for the purpose of involving tenants in decision-making and management of their homes. This is a process of changing attitudes, and that is never quick or easy.

Since September many, many meetings have been taking place across Ontario to answer a set of questions given to each housing authority by our Ministry of Housing. Mr Speaker, I want to tell you about a meeting in Niagara Falls last week. About 60 people were involved, all having their say on the issues, such as safety and security; eliminating discrimination, racism and harassment; tenant placement and selection. I was very proud of what was accomplished, the very realistic solutions that were presented.

I want to publicly thank all of those who were involved in the subcommittees, as well as coordinator Jenny Rossi, authority chair Ron Gibson, manager Ed Fortier and all of those people.

I thank these people because I know this is an extremely difficult process, taking patience, listening, trust and caring. It is especially difficult in this economic climate, but we can't say it can't be done because of money. With determination and a clear goal in mind, we can work together to give people more say in their lives.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers. The Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week, I announced in this House that Ontario has passed its --

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to make a statement about the passing of a former member of this Legislature.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

ARTHUR C. JOLLEY

Hon Shirley Coppen (Minister without Portfolio in Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I rise in this House today to mark the passing on Saturday, April 24, 1993, of Mr Arthur C. Jolley, Progressive Conservative member of the Ontario Legislature from 1953 to 1959. Mr Jolley, MPP for Niagara Falls riding, was first elected to the provincial Legislature in a by-election on October 26, 1953. He went on to retain his seat during the 1955 general election and served until his defeat in 1959.

A building contractor and partner in Jolley Construction Co with his brother Leonard, Art served four years in the Canadian Armed Forces and served four years on Niagara Falls city council.

Art's involvement in Niagara Falls community life included membership with the local Kiwanis, the Masonic Order and Clif-Lodge.

Arthur Jolley's interest in his community went on long after he ended his political career. I remember with fondness the kindness and encouragement he extended me as a first-time member of this Legislature and in the years since my election as Niagara South MPP in 1990.

His friendship and good humour were matched only by his willingness to share his experience and his knowledge. For that, I will always be grateful.

I will miss Arthur C. Jolley. Whenever you spoke to Art, he always made you feel you were in the right place. I think that's a wonderful comment on a wonderful man who served his province very well.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's my pleasure, on behalf of the Liberal Party, to rise in the House to pay tribute to the late Art Jolley. He's listed in the book of course as Arthur Jolley and is listed, I guess, in the plaque outside that mentions the names of the legislators as Arthur Jolley, but anybody who knew him always knew him as Art.

Some of the legislators who sit today may have noticed a jovial, friendly individual who once in a while stopped in to the legislative dining room and made a point of chatting with members of all the different parties. That was Art Jolley.

He was able to attract support from people not only of his own party, the Progressive Conservative Party, but, I'm sure, many Liberals and New Democrats, and in his day it would be CCFers. Those without a political affiliation were attracted to Art Jolley because of his personality, because of his desire to serve his community, first of all on the city council in Niagara Falls and, subsequent to that, in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

Art also had another special place for people in southern Ontario, and that place was on a radio station, CKTB, in St Catharines, where he was part of the Super Seniors Network along with Meagan and Don Hildebrandt. They hosted a program on Sunday mornings, right up until his recent illness, of music from the 1930s and the 1940s and the 1950s and sometimes even from the 1920s. There was a lot of, again, jovial talk about those days, and Art was the person who supplied much of the humour and much of the, I guess you would say, loving on that program.

He was enjoyed by all, and when we gathered, a number of us, a couple of years ago for his 80th birthday, there was an excellent cross-section of people in the community who remembered his service. He was awarded, by the way, the Canada 125 medal for his volunteer work, because beyond the Legislative Assembly where he served in an official capacity, Art Jolley was a person who was prepared to be part of his community in a volunteer way. Anyone who sought his assistance in dealing with government, or indeed with anything in our society, found that Art was most willing to be helpful.

To his family and to his many friends, I offer my condolences. Those of us in this assembly who have met him remember Art well. He has served the people of this province and the people in the Niagara Peninsula appropriately. We will all miss him.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party in respect to the family of Mr Jolley. The information that I have about Mr Jolley is the fact that he was a member much like myself, from what I've been told, who represents the people in the ridings, and that is what I have been told, that Mr Jolley was very forceful in that aspect when he was a member here from 1953 to 1959.

Mr Jolley's highlight of his life, I've been told, was the fun that he had with the super seniors on the radio program, the volunteer work that he did for the community and the many involvements he had with regard to the Fort Erie Municipal Housing Corp, the Kiwanis club and the Masonic Lodge that he was involved in.

In this Legislature Mr Jolley served on the committee of public accounts, the committee of municipal law, the committee of education and the committee on private bills. That's an indication to me that he fulfilled his duties also as a member of this Legislature.

On behalf of the PC party of Ontario, I would like to send condolences to Mr Jolley's wife, two children and his four grandchildren on behalf the people here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The kind and thoughtful remarks by the honourable members for Niagara South and St Catharines and Simcoe East will be sent to the family of Mr Jolley.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

WASTE REDUCTION

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): Last week I announced in this House that Ontario has passed its first waste reduction milestone: We met our 25% reduction objective in 1992, largely due to the commitment and efforts of literally millions of Ontarians.

Today I address our next challenge, reaching the target of 50% reduction or more by the year 2000.

As part of the waste reduction action plan, I am introducing regulations under the Waste Management Act which will simplify approvals for recycling facilities and save money on waste disposal. By the year 2000, we will divert up to an additional two million tonnes a year from landfill in this province. That's approximately 200,000 fewer truckloads of garbage every year. These regulations will make Ontario a world leader in waste reduction.

The new 3Rs regulations become law in August. This will allow everyone time to study the regulations and requirements and prepare to comply with them. Regulatory measures include: blue box recycling, leaf and yard waste composting and home composting programs for municipalities of more than 5,000 in population; annual waste audits, reduction work plans and recycling for large industrial, commercial and institutional waste generators; packaging audits, updated every two years, and packaging reduction work plans as well.

We have listened to the extensive input received on the Initiatives Paper No 1, which laid out our regulatory proposals 18 months ago. We consulted widely, with 434 organizations, industries and individuals. We've taken into account the ideas submitted during the Legislature's deliberations on the Waste Management Act. Our original proposals have been refined accordingly to provide built-in flexibility in the regulations.

For example, while all designated municipalities will be required to collect traditional blue box materials like newspapers, steel, aluminum, PET plastic containers and glass, they have options to choose other materials to recycle.

We are also giving longer phase-in periods to the regulations to accommodate northern Ontario communities which face much greater challenges in establishing cost-effective programs due to the long distances from markets for recyclables.

There are many in the public and private sectors who are already meeting the requirements of regulations voluntarily and successfully. We need to build on this voluntary action.

In the coming months we will be working towards a new and fair partnership in waste reduction which the province, municipalities, industry and commerce, and institutions, groups and individuals can build on. We will be pursuing mechanisms for ensuring that those who create products and packaging destined for recycling pay their fair share of the costs.

Many companies and institutions have embraced the 3Rs out of concern for the environment, but they also see that waste reduction pays dividends. Their operations become more efficient, their costs are reduced, their products and services are welcomed by a public that appreciates environmental concern by business and industry, and during this recession, many companies have cut their costs and become more efficient, and that has contributed to the success of the 3Rs program so far. Others have found new opportunities for products and services in the 3Rs that have produced economic opportunities and jobs.

Ontario's waste reduction initiatives are consistent with the government's 10-point plan to put Ontario back to work. They are investments in jobs, in people and in structuring a more sustainable economy. We will make our year-2000 target of at least 50% waste diversion in ways that benefit both our environment and our economic recovery. These regulations demonstrate that we are changing from a wasteful, throw-away society to one that conserves resources for future generations.

EDUCATION PROGRAM EVALUATION

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I'm pleased to advise members of details of five measures my ministry is taking to improve our education system's accountability and the way it reports on results to students, their parents and the general public.

The people of Ontario are demanding accountability in education. As the Commission on Learning will be looking at wider reforms to promote accountability, the initiatives will certainly be relevant to the commission's work. We will keep the commission informed about these measures and the results.

The measures are the grade 9 reading and writing test; the development of test materials and activities for grades 3, 6 and 9 mathematics; draft provincial standards, which are sometimes called "benchmarks," for language and math; guidelines for student achievement profiles for students in grades 7 to 9; and a statement describing current provincial policies and programs dealing with evaluation of both students and the elementary and