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

October 19, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Today is October 19, a full six months behind the usual time for the government's announcements on new school construction. It's outrageous how the NDP has gotten away, so far, with very little public criticism of this appalling lack of action.

What's the holdup, Minister? Be upfront with the people of Ontario. If you can't come up with the money for new schools, at least have the guts to say so. All you've done so far is tell people to wait and wait and wait for an announcement.

In May we waited patiently for a word from you, and nothing came. In June you said we would know by July. In September you said we would know by October 1. Now it's three weeks later and there's still no peep out of your ministry.

Minister, will you build the new schools for the high-growth areas of the province or won't you? It's time for you and your NDP cabinet colleagues to come clean with the people of Ontario. This is an issue of vital importance for the students of this province. How can the school boards in my area and elsewhere plan buildings if they don't know what you will approve or not?

Trustees and administrators all across the province are getting very restless at this constant foot-dragging by the Rae government. If you need any political advice from your new NDP top civil servant, David Agnew, it should be this: Get on with the job of capital announcements for new schools.

ST JAMES SCHOOL

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): St James school is a community school with a 35-year history of being a genuine focal point for extensive service to the population it serves. It has provided the students with quality education and the community with a focus for its development. It serves approximately 20 different first- or second-generation ethnic groups and is the most heavily used elementary facility in the region of Halton's Catholic school system. Many heritage-language programs run by the community are available at St James. It is also the first place of consideration for the many ethnic festivals which are held throughout the year.

It is now over a year since I accompanied representatives of the separate school board to a meeting with the former Minister of Education and presented her with a brief explaining the necessity of capital funding for St James school in Oakville. I presented a petition to the Lieutenant Governor on the same day as the meeting containing the names of 1,000 supporters -- parents, trustees and educators.

Despite phone requests and letters during the year since this meeting, neither the school board nor I have had a response from the ministry. You are simply ignoring the question, and this is totally unacceptable to both the people of my riding and to me as their member of Parliament. I say to the Minister of Education: Please let the people of Oakville know when they will receive the capital funding for St James school.

FAETHORNE PLACE HOUSING COOPERATIVE

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I was pleased to participate in the ground-breaking for the Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative in Sarnia last Friday afternoon, an appropriate event considering it was Cooperative Housing Week in the province of Ontario.

The true spirit of cooperation has been a key element in this project. There are many players who have come together to get this project off the ground. Because of their efforts, 60 units will be made available to residents of Sarnia-Lambton.

Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative is a non-profit corporation established by local community volunteers to help address the need for assisted housing in Sarnia and the immediate vicinity. Being non-profit in nature, this cooperative is accessible: accessible in the fact that it breaks down barriers to people with lower incomes who wish better housing and, most importantly, it is accessible in that membership is open to all people.

As well, on September 21 of this year I had the pleasure of announcing annual supportive housing funding for the Ontario March of Dimes in Sarnia. The March of Dimes will also be a participant in the Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative. They will provide supportive care for some of the cooperative's residents in barrier-free units, a result of cooperation between the ministries of Housing, Community and Social Services and Citizenship.

This Sarnia project is a fine example of the government working in partnership with dedicated groups in our community to help improve the quality of life for our citizens. I congratulate the board of Faethorne Place Housing Cooperative and all those who have participated in this project.

CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): For undecided voters on the referendum question, I urge you to think of Premier Joe Ghiz's words, "The prophet of the perfect is the enemy of the good." Having so many different governments and groups agree on a package in a diverse country like ours is in itself a tremendous achievement worthy of our support.

Remember that a meticulous and demanding constitutional lawyer such as Premier Clyde Wells and former justices of the Supreme Court of Canada endorse the new accord. They know every Constitution represents compromise. Even Pierre Trudeau had to hold his nose for the patriation and a charter deal in 1982. When Trudeau recently announced his support for the No side, he admitted his "notwithstanding" clause was an unwanted and dangerous section. In other words, if Trudeau had insisted on the perfect deal in 1982, there would have been no deal, no Charter of Rights and no patriation.

Constitutions will always be imperfect and be subject to

interpretation and court cases. Our present Constitution has been subject to thousands of court

interpretations in our 125-year history.

Yes, the Charlottetown accord is not perfect, but remember Joe Ghiz's words, "The prophet of the perfect is the enemy of the good."

SPECIAL SERVICES AT HOME PROGRAM

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): The Ministry of Community and Social Services has for several years administered the special services at home program. This program has assisted the families of disabled or developmentally handicapped children by providing a contract worker trained in speech, occupational or physiotherapy who comes into the home and works on a one-to-one basis with children, some of them suffering from Down syndrome, severe epilepsy and uncontrollable seizure disorders. This is the type of necessary program that the NDP in opposition would have stridently supported.

However, in government the NDP has callously cut these services to families in Wellington who need them: Theresa and Earl Campbell and their daughter, Tannis, of Maryborough township, four hours a week cut to zero; Mrs Janice Goll and her daughter, Sarah, of Erin Township, 10 hours a week cut to six; John and Barbara Perkins and their daughter, Becky, of Hillsburgh, 22 hours a week cut to 10; and Jonathon Nymeyer and his mother, Alice, of Drayton, cut from 10 hours a week to zero.

The people of Wellington understand the need for fiscal restraint in tough times, but they also demand that priorities for government programs must make sense.

How can this government spend $4.5 million on a health survey asking people if they think they are too fat or how often they use condoms and then cut programs for disabled kids and their families? This makes me feel sick.

I can't believe an NDP government would be so uncaring as to cut back essential services for disabled kids and their families. As their representative, I am absolutely livid. It would be sad to see the NDP degenerate from being a party of ideals into a movement of heartless deceivers. If you do not correct this horrible policy of program cuts to disabled kids, that is exactly what you will become.

SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): In February 1992 the Wentworth County Board of Education voted to discontinue school bus transportation to Cambridge secondary schools in Waterloo county. The Waterloo county high school is approximately six kilometres away, while the closest Wentworth high school board is approximately 30 kilometres away. The Wentworth board of education has decided to bus these students from one to one and a half hours each way to a Wentworth school as opposed to busing them 15 minutes to an out-of-county school.

Dr Murray Scharf, dean of education at the University of Saskatchewan and an expert on rural education, states, "Lengthy bus time can negate the opportunities for students to participate in high school cocurricular activities outside of normal school hours." Most parents would drive their children if they were within 15 to 20 minutes of the school. A round trip of one hour or more almost guarantees that parental permission would not be granted. He also states:

"I am of the opinion that at some point, at or beyond two hours of transportation per day, the academic achievement of high school students is significantly affected. In conclusion, busing beyond a certain point adversely affects achievement."

I would conclude from Mr Scharf's observations that these rural students' academic and extracurricular activities could be jeopardized by the board's decision.

I have had much discussion with parents, trustees and ministry staff. The busing decision has caused great concern for many parents and students in Sheffield. It is hoped that the soon-to-take-place meeting with the Minister of Education will help resolve this most distressful situation in an expeditious and amiable manner.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN MISSISSAUGA

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to inform members and, in the same way, congratulate the city of Mississauga's economic development office, which won three awards recently at the annual conference of the Economic Developers Association of Canada.

The awards, announced at the Ottawa conference in September, were received for the city of Mississauga's 1991 business directory, for the city's Infotech newsletter and for a print advertisement campaign.

The business directory has been a frequent winner over the years, but the print advertising campaign was a very unique campaign. The ads were targeted at technology-based industries and designed for frequent repetition at reasonable cost.

Since 1987, marketing materials produced by the city of Mississauga's economic development office have won 17 awards in provincial, national and international competitions of economic development professional organizations.

I would like to recognize the efforts of Karen Campbell, the economic development director for the city, and all the members of her department. The excellence of their work is undoubtedly one reason why the city of Mississauga continues to be successful in attracting new business and new investment. Even in these economic times and even facing the uncertainty this provincial government is foisting upon the people with the labour law reforms and many other very negative things, our economic development office is still a success.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Committee consideration of Bill 40 will end today despite the fact that there are many amendments which have not yet been debated. The so-called consultation process has been an absolute sham.

I am extremely disappointed that the presentations from the more than 600 groups and individuals that made representation to the committee during this summer are not being given any consideration by this government.

Of the 94 amendments which I have introduced, we have only had time to debate 32. It is absolutely essential that the government allow more time to debate the amendments. To do otherwise is to ignore the genuine concerns of the people who devoted time and effort to preparing presentations which they believed would be given serious consideration.

I was also very surprised that none of the 15 amendments introduced by the Labour critic from the official opposition included an amendment regarding the use of replacement workers, since the September 29th news release issued by the leader of the official opposition stated that the Liberals would be putting forward such an amendment.

This government is trying to pass this bill as quickly as possible while public attention is centred on the referendum debate. There has never been any demonstrated need for this legislation and there is no demonstrated need for its hasty passage other than to try to bury it during the referendum debate.

The government fails to recognize the devastating impact of this bill on the people in this province in its haste to appease its own special-interest groups.

CONSERVATION

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I rise today to praise the council of the town of Pickering and the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority as they have, after a long struggle, ensured the preservation of an important part of Frenchman's Bay. I was proud to be able to play an integral part myself.

The councillors for this ward have been working diligently for many years in order to achieve this outcome, especially Eileen Higdon, the local councillor, who knows well the importance of the bay as she lives right next to it herself. Her battle to ensure that the town houses that were proposed for this area were not built goes back many years, even prior to her election. She and her regional counterpart, Kip Van Kempen, are pleased, and with good reason.

I can only say that I am gratified to be part of a government that understands the importance of significant wetlands and allows for their protection. The wetlands policy this government put in place was unfortunately not in effect in time to rescue these important eight and one-half hectares, as the initial approvals were in place prior to this government's coming into office. It is wetlands such as these that help to purify our drinking water and allow a haven for many rare and endangered species.

My hat is off to the town of Pickering and to the MTRCA. I hope they continue in their understanding of the importance of finding creative solutions that will preserve our environment. I look forward to working alongside them in the future. It is only through these types of partnerships that our mutual constituency is well served.

MINISTERIAL INFORMATION

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On Thursday, October 8, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, raised a point of order with respect to ministerial statements. His concern was that the statement made by the Chair of Management Board in the House did not follow precisely the text of the statement that had been provided pursuant to standing order 32(c).

I refer members to a decision made by Speaker Edighoffer on May 29, 1990, in which he indicated that the Speaker does not receive copies of written statements and is therefore unable to follow along. I would add that, even if the Speaker were required to receive copies of written statements, it would not be her or his responsibility to determine whether a discrepancy is substantial in nature or whether it is an embellishment of no consequence.

While the powers of the Speaker in this regard are circumscribed, surely it is in keeping with the spirit of the standing order that ministers adhere closely to the written text when making statements so as to avoid possible misunderstandings. It may be that on occasion, changing circumstances require that the oral statement differs in some respect from the written statement. In such a situation, I would expect that any minister would wish to advise the House of the departure from the prepared text.

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Very briefly, you will remember that on Monday, 5 October, I raised a point of order with respect to a point of personal privilege, the right of opposition critics to be in the Legislature and what happens if they are not able to be there for other reasons.

I recognize that as a result of that point, the government House leader, in my case, adjourned the committee hearings for a period of two days. However, I do believe the point still remains. I think it is important that you do rule on that point so that I, as well as all other members in this Legislature, today and tomorrow and for all time will know our rights as opposition critics.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the point raised by the member. It was my understanding that, first, there had been some accommodation of the situation; second, the committee for the Legislative Assembly has been charged with the responsibility of taking a look at the wider question. But indeed I am pleased to take another look at it myself, if that would be of assistance to the member. I will report back to you later.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer. It has to do with the deficit estimates for this year and a story that appeared in the Windsor Star on Friday, written by what I guess you would call a crusading reporter.

Treasurer, you know that in your budget you have put an estimate of revenue from the federal government at $1.2 billion in what's called fiscal stabilization from the federal government. From the day the budget came out, Treasurer, you will know that we in the official opposition have questioned that number and have felt all along that you would only get at best a fraction of the $1.2 billion.

The report on Friday in the Windsor Star confirms our part of the story, confirms, at least in this report, that the expectations are that you will at best only get a fraction of the $1.2 billion, and therefore your deficit either will be substantially higher or you'll be required to make substantially larger cuts than you'd planned.

My question to you, Treasurer, is this: When you prepared that $1.2 billion, knowing that in the other two cases in this country it's taken literally years for that fiscal stabilization payment to be made, knowing that the federal government had not budgeted the $1.2 billion, what assurances did you have from the federal government that your $1.2-billion estimate was a fair and reasonable expectation?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I did indeed read the

article in the Windsor Star. I guess one good tabloid deserves another, because I read in another tabloid on the weekend that the federal government was quoted as saying that we deserved the money and that we would indeed be getting the money. So I'm not sure which side of the argument you want to come down on.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): You cooked the books.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think I'll respond to the interjection that this government "cooked the books." When we made our prediction on what our revenues and expenditures would be for 1992-93, we saw no reason to believe we would not receive money from the federal government, based on the fact that there was an obligation on the federal government to pay that. It has been part of the fiscal arrangements with the federal government since, I believe, back to 1967, or certainly a long time ago.

Ontario would not be the first province to have launched a claim -- other provinces have done so -- and Ontario has been most generous, I think appropriately so, over the years in the sharing of our revenues with other parts of the country. When a recession hits Ontario harder than any other part of the country, it seems to me that we have a right to our fair share and that there was no reason to believe we would not receive that $1.2 billion as part of our fiscal stabilization claim.

Mr Phillips: You've not answered the question, with all due respect. I said to you, what assurances did you have from the federal government? I know you've put a claim in, but I will say again, there have only been two other claims that have been paid in this country. Both took several years to make, and the full payment was not made.

In my opinion, Treasurer, you've put a number in that you have no reasonable expectation of getting this year. I asked you, what assurances did you have from the federal government that a $1.2-billion revenue was a reasonable revenue to put in this fiscal year?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, there was no reason to expect we would not get it. Second, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt refers to a longer time period that the other two provinces, Alberta and BC, had to wait when they put a fiscal stabilization claim in some years ago. Their claim was based on resource revenues and the dramatic drop in resource revenues. That is not the case with Ontario's predicament. A lot of things have been tidied up in the fiscal arrangements since that time and, to this day, I see no reason why that entire claim cannot be honoured this fiscal year.

Mr Phillips: Treasurer, if I might be as direct with you as I can, the people of Ontario want to know what is a reasonable estimate of the finances. I submit to you that the federal government has never indicated it had any intention of ever paying $1.2 billion this fiscal year. I would say you have had no assurance from them and I'm trying to get a fair and reasonable answer out of you of what the people of Ontario can expect.

Treasurer, we have asked now four times publicly, starting last December, for the proposal that you sent to the federal government. Will you agree to release that? Will you agree to release any correspondence which indicates the commitment that you've been able to get out of the federal government?

Also, you are going to bring out your financial estimates in another week or two, I gather. They've now had that proposal for almost a year. In your estimates of revenue that are going to come out in the next few days, will you undertake, for the people of Ontario, to give us the most accurate estimate, based on comments and discussion and dialogue with the federal government, of what is a reasonable expectation on the fiscal stabilization? In our opinion, there is not a hope of your getting $1.2 billion and to continue to put it in there is misleading.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll be as direct as I can with the member opposite. Certainly, to my knowledge, at no point since that claim was put in with the federal government has anyone in the federal government, from the minister on down, indicated to us that we should abandon all hope of getting a claim this year; at no point.

The minister has indicated that his officials and our officials from Ontario are working assiduously on the numbers. They are very complex and as the revenues are collected the numbers do change so that it's not possible to give you a final set of numbers on what the components were of the fiscal stabilization claim.

But there'd be no reason for us to pretend that we are going to get something we're not going to get. What purpose would that serve? It would simply delay the accounting until the end of year. So we would have nothing to gain by pretending we could get the number, get that claim, if we didn't think that we would actually get it.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, you will know that, due to the dictatorial time limits imposed by your government, today happens to be the last day which the legislative committee examining Bill 40, changes to the Labour Relations Act, will have in order to consider any amendments.

Late last week, Mr Minister, your government sprung 26 more amendments to the bill, knowing that there were only 30 minutes left in the committee to deal with the legislation. Unlike other pronouncements we've had on this bill by yourself, Mr Minister, there was no time for the usual fanfare or media blitz.

Minister, what explanation do you have for holding back 26 changes to the labour relations bill until the last day for committee hearings on this legislation?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm a little surprised that the member would raise that. I think it's irresponsible for the honourable member to intimate that these are new amendments we're trying to sneak through. The government did not introduce any new amendments to Bill 40. We submitted the legal text for amendments that we announced we were going to submit on October 13.

Mr Offer: In a word, baloney. You sat on these amendments for two weeks. You used the time allocation procedures to limit the amount of time the committee could consider the amendments and then you sprung 26 changes on the committee at the last possible moment.

Mr Minister, your government's own time closure allocation motion says that proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee by 4 pm prior to the last day the committee can consider the bill. Minister, just before the 4 pm time period, you dropped 26 changes to the Labour Relations Act. This behaviour is incredibly amazing. It's not surprising, as you have indicated, because you have not seen fit to sit on the committee, to listen to one submission made, to listen to one amendment made to the Labour Relations Act.

No one on the committee or in the various communities that are concerned with the bill will have a chance to discuss your changes to the bill because you are forcing the committee to conclude its consideration of the bill today. You didn't inform the affected groups.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Smile on camera, Bob. Come on, Mackenzie, smile on camera.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West, come to order.

Mr Offer: Mr Minister, what explanation do you have for the many groups that have concerns with this legislation, that came before the committee, that want to have an opportunity to respond to the bill and to the amendments? What explanation do you have for shutting out those groups from responding to those changes you made last week?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The explanation is stupidity and pigheadedness.

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, come to order.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: We know what kind of answers you've got. You're driving the economy into the ground. This province is doing worse than any other province in Canada.

The Speaker: I ask the member for York Mills to please come to order.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member for York Mills does better when he's taking on the member for Mississauga North in the committee. Sharon Murdock, our parliamentary assistant, announced in committee on October 13 that the legal text had not yet been prepared for the replacement worker provisions and the contract tendering provisions. We announced the amendments we were bringing in. Some of these amendments are also the French-language technical corrections and other technical amendments, and they were brought in before the deadline. But the members of the committee knew exactly what we were moving and bringing in well before that.

Mr Offer: It is absolutely incredible that a minister who didn't sit on the committee for one moment would give a response like that. Mr Minister, these hearings have been a sham from day one. You have turned your back on those many groups that came before the committee with concerns. The changes you dropped last week will not only not allow those groups to read them; they will not even allow them to analyse and discuss what the impact of those changes will be. Today you are telling those groups and those many individuals who have very deep concerns about the bill to trust you. Nobody does. They don't believe you and they don't like the process you've instituted and stage-managed.

Mr Minister, you now have the opportunity to stand up in this Legislature and say to everyone in this chamber and to those watching that you will call on your government House leader to give two more days to the committee to discuss those changes, to deal with the impact and to listen to the groups. Mr Minister, are you in favour of this committee extending its hearings for two days in order to deal with those changes?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: As far as timing is concerned, we have adhered to the required deadlines. There's been ample opportunity for debate. The amendments the member is talking about were not new amendments. He knew exactly what was coming a week and a half before that, and I think the committee has had ample time to deal with the issue.

The Speaker: New question, the third party.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to pursue the question concerning Bill 40. I find it interesting that the official opposition is questioning the minister on the lack of input and amendments on the replacement worker

section when the official opposition itself hasn't tabled any amendments on that particular amendment.

However, Mr Mackenzie, the question I have for you is this: Why have you not allowed sufficient time for the opposition to discuss all of the concerns that were presented this summer by over 600 presenters, presentations that were made in oral and written form? The time line that has been given by this government is simply inappropriate. Why do we not have time?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find it interesting that a process that's already gone on for better than a year and a half is now said to be inadequate. I find it also interesting that when this minister and his staff have talked to more than 320 groups -- and I think there were some 220 that appeared before the committee -- we should now be told that the process has not been adequate. I reject the argument being made by the honourable member.

Mrs Witmer: The minister may have received submissions but he certainly didn't consider the submissions, and I'd like to zero in on one area.

This summer, the retailers in this province came before the committee and told you about the problems that picketing on third-party property would create. You know that the retail sector represents over $30 billion in annual sales. They employ over 500,000 people. That's about 12% of the total people in this province who are employed. As you know, they have been badly hurt by the recession, cross-border shopping and a record low level of consumer confidence. They are hurting. In fact, in the first three months of this year alone, about 3,000 retail jobs were lost.

We need to regain the confidence of consumers if we're going to achieve economic recovery, but I can assure you, Mr Minister, that consumers are not going to shop in any environment where there's picketing.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mrs Witmer: Your legislation is going to impact on business people. Will you introduce an amendment to remove

section 12 from Bill 40?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member knows, if she has studied the legislation at all, that the intent doesn't allow picketing at the entrance or exit to a shopping mall. The legislation says clearly that the only picketing that can be conducted is at the actual entrance or exit of the individual unit that might be under an organizing drive, and it certainly doesn't disrupt the activities of most shoppers in that mall at all.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, that does not answer the concern of the retail community, because not only was it unhappy with the original section, but you've made it even worse.

Two weeks ago, you tabled an amendment to

section 12 that is going to increase the concerns that were brought to your attention this summer, to which you didn't listen in the first place. Your new amendment is going to allow any person to represent a trade union for the purposes of picketing on third-party property -- any person.

For example, a union could give any of the individuals who presently are hanging outside around the Eaton Centre a dollar and it could designate them representatives of the union. These people would have the authority to picket outside the entrance of a store in the mall.

By allowing the representatives of a union to take the place of union employees, the government, in effect, is allowing union officials to have replacement workers while prohibiting a struck employer from using the replacement workers.

Mr Minister, in describing this replacement section, it is kinder to use the word "inconsistency" than "hypocrisy". Will you withdraw this amendment on the grounds of your inconsistency?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I reject the grounds that I'm inconsistent, and no, I will not withdraw the amendment.

POLICE JOB ACTION

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Solicitor General. The problem with the use of force in Metropolitan Toronto I see as a more systematic and people problem than in fact is on the surface. The police in this particular city are convinced --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: The police in Metropolitan Toronto who are on this work-to-rule campaign are convinced that nobody in this government has their interests at heart, that nobody in this government represents the interests of the rank and file officer. Some of that problem I think, in fact a lot of that problem, must be laid at the doorstep of the Solicitor General and the Premier of this government.

You've introduced policies which are totally out of touch with what the police are going through on a day-to-day basis in Metropolitan Toronto: filing reports for drawing their guns and appointments that police perceive as direct opposition to the rank and file cop.

The appointment of Susan Eng as chair was an appointment that a very small percentage of people, a very small percentage of officers, would have endorsed. You didn't consult with the union, although you'll consult with unions on an ongoing basis on a whole bunch of issues, but you didn't consult with the police officers in Metropolitan Toronto about the appointment of someone who frankly previous to this appointment was anti-police.

My question: To restore police confidence in you and this government, in this administration, why would the Solicitor General not appeal to the Premier that he reverse a bad decision and revoke Susan Eng's appointment?

Interjection: I'll bet you're not even ready for this.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): You wouldn't have to be too ready for that one.

I think the remarks by the member opposite really do nothing to help solve a contentious issue and matter before the people of Metropolitan Toronto in this particular area. I am pleased to see that the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force has scaled down its job action and quite frankly I hope to see it end in its entirety very soon.

With respect to the appointments to the police services board, I think all members of that board, whether they be representatives of the government or representatives from the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, are all collectively working in the best interests of the citizens of Ontario and the city that they represent and will continue to do that.

Mr Stockwell: The minister categorizes my remarks as doing nothing to help the process. Mr Minister, quite frankly you're doing nothing. You're doing nothing by coming to this House and refusing to meet with the police officers. You're doing worse than nothing by appointing a chair who none of the police officers want to see there, who they don't accept as a person who is representing them. You're doing nothing by not meeting with the officials who have asked a number of times that you meet with them. You're doing nothing by having the Premier sit idly by and yourself sit idly by when a very important issue is taking place in Metropolitan Toronto.

I submit to you that your ministers have all the time in the world to meet with Mr Upshaw and OPSEU about opting in some thousands of bureaucrats for union positions. You've all the time in the world to meet with other union officials when it comes to labour legislation. Why is it that you don't have half an hour to meet with another union that happens to be requesting a meeting for some number of weeks?

The question is, why will you not meet with this union, which is asking, begging you for an audience so it can explain its position?

The Speaker: Will the member complete his question?

Mr Stockwell: The only idea I can come up with is that this union doesn't have checkoff, and checkoff means it submits money to you. Is that what it takes to get a meeting with you, Mr Minister: money?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I understand that this is a politically partisan forum, and if anybody didn't understand it, after remarks from the honourable member opposite he surely would understand it. I've never heard such a diatribe full of tripe for several weeks in these chambers. He's absolutely wrong. I accused his honourable colleague in the front benches the other day of being out to lunch, and I think Stockwell's out to lunch with him.

I want to tell you that I as Solicitor General and the ministry I represent meet with the police stakeholder groups, all of them, on a regular, ongoing basis, and they in fact have input to all of our considerations and deliberations.

The suggestion from the member opposite is that we're refusing to meet with this association. I have said in this House for a week and a half, and publicly, that my door is open. As a matter of fact, just a couple of days ago the Ontario Provincial Police Association took up that offer, did appear in my offices and emerged to indicate to the public that it was not joining the Metropolitan Toronto Police Association campaign, which it sees as misdirected.

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I will, Mr Speaker, but it might interest the members opposite as well that other jurisdictions -- in Edmonton, Halton, Thunder Bay, Waterloo, Sudbury and others -- all follow this existing program. It's interesting that many of these comments suggest they see all of this action as much to do about nothing. It is, and if people join the very positive, financial --

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response, please?

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- resources that we provide to build on the framework of policing to ensure that our streets are safer and to give our men and women officers even more tools to do their job properly, we will all be a lot better off than this kind of railing rhetoric from members opposite.

Mr Stockwell: I think what the police are looking for, Mr Minister, is simply a meeting with you.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Is there a question here?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, I do have a question. He's accusing me of being out to lunch. Maybe if you went to work before noon, I'd accuse you of the same, but I can't. This minister has been a major foul-up in every ministry he's ever attempted to run. If we asked you to fill out a report every time you made a mistake, Mr Minister, all you'd be doing is filling out reports.

The request from the police association is to meet. This minister hung one deputy minister out to dry. This minister now is going to let Chief McCormack hang out to dry on this one. They've asked for a meeting. Toronto has some different policing problems from Sudbury and Thunder Bay --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: -- and a few other cities, Mr Minister. You haven't met with them, you haven't allowed them to meet with you and your door has not been open. I ask you again, what is going to have to happen? We know about the deputy minister you hung out to dry on the corrections issue. Are you going to now allow the chief of police in Toronto to be left out to dry, to seek forms to force his people to go back to work --

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

Mr Stockwell: -- before you allow a simple meeting to take place? Please, meet with them for half an hour; that's all they're asking.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It's been my experience, in the couple of decades or so that I've been involved in public office -- and I certainly thank the people who have supported those efforts and allowed me to serve in that capacity -- it's always been my experience that when you have a very poor case where you can't win the argument on the facts and on the merit, what you do is switch channels to some sort of personal attack. I think the remarks we just heard from members opposite speak to the reality of that situation I've just commented on.

In addition to that, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take his seat, please. Minister.

Hon Mr Pilkey: If I might return at least to the substantive nature of the argument, I want to indicate again that I'd indicated in this House, I believe for weeks now, and in public that my door is open to those associations that wish to have an explanation of this particular regulation. Why the member opposite persists in saying that option is not available, even after having been publicly told that that is the case, I don't know, but I'll try it one more time, because some people have more difficulty than others comprehending: My door is open to that association or any other major police stakeholder group, as it always has been.

CHEQUE CASHING BILL

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the cheque cashing issue. I want to know why the minister of Community and Social Services persists in defending the status quo. Since when are excuses a substitute for decision-making and action?

The minister says that Bill 154 is flawed because it does not suggest alternatives. I have encouraged the government and representatives of financial institutions to work together. We have the full cooperation of financial institutions. She knows that I have stated repeatedly how important it is to set up a system that will guarantee that low-income Ontarians can cash their cheques.

Minister, let me make a suggestion to you. The bill is lying here dormant: third reading. The bill was passed by all the members of this House. All you have to do is to suggest, through a motion, that the bill be sent to committee of the whole, be fixed, be honed, be fine-tuned and sent back to third reading, and pass it. Minister, why are you stalling?

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): I have answered this question to the member a number of times. I am not defending the status quo. We are working very hard to change the status quo. There are a number of issues that we have done. We have tried to reduce the post-dated cheque problem, and we are getting good cooperation from both the municipalities and from our areas. We have done an implementation, which starts this month, of a new postal system called the NDG sort, which means that those cheques go on the date that they're dated so that we don't have the pre-date problem.

We have 35% of FBA recipients now on direct deposit. We sent out a notice in the August cheques to encourage more, and we're getting a good response. We have six different projects going on in municipalities to have direct deposit of GWA cheques. We are working with the Canadian Bankers Association around identification issues and around indemnification issues it has asked for. We are continuing to do that because we believe that until we have all possible avenues in place, it makes no sense to absolutely end the cheque cashing outfits, because people end up with no place to cash their cheques.

Mr Morin: Minister, I have never said that I wanted these organizations to be out of the picture. What I said is that no fees should be charged for anyone cashing a government cheque. We have the full support of the House. The key word here is "initiative." The minister has all the facts. She has all the cooperation she wishes. We can learn from Quebec's experience and implement Bill 154 without leaving anyone in the cold.

Why does the minister allow the charging of fees that deprive low-income Ontarians of money they desperately need? When will the minister practice what she preaches and become more responsive to the needs of low-income Ontarians?

I would like the minister to explain to this House why she is delaying action when you have lineups of people waiting for food and you take away their money. This is not fair. Minister, when are you going to take the initiative to resolve the issue? Don't linger; act now.

Hon Mrs Boyd: We know very well from the experience of Quebec that if you do not have these other measures in place, cheque cashing simply goes underground: The official charging of fees stops, but the underground charging of fees does not. We are not prepared to make the same mistake. That is why I keep on saying, every time the member brings this up -- and he seems to have no other topic on his mind -- that we are acting to try and prevent this issue in ways that we believe are more effective than what he is suggesting.

EDUCATION POLICY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mrs Cunningham: Mr Minister, I'm sure you're aware of the consultation conference in Windsor our party held on the weekend. There were a lot of questions with regard to the whole issue of destreaming, most of them raised as a result of the question and answer session that you and I had in the House last week. I wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify a couple of points with regard to this issue.

First of all, you talked about September 1993 as being an implementation date, and then you further stated that there was a three-year phase-in, so there's some confusion. You also said that there would be common core documents available soon for the boards to look at in order to implement this program of destreaming. When will you be releasing the common core documents, since next September is less than 10 months away?

Second, what do you really mean by "phasing in"? Does this mean that one school within that board could start in September 1993 and yet all the other school boards could wait and initially defy your intent and not begin this destreaming until September 1996? Would you clarify those two issues at this point, please?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'll be happy to try to do that. First of all, with respect to the common core curriculum document, I expect it will be available some time later this fall. I'm hoping it won't be too much longer before that can be circulated to school boards and schools.

With respect to the implementation time line, the distinction between what starts in September 1993 and what goes on for the next three years is generally this: We've indicated that with regard to the issue of credits, that will start to be applicable as of September 1993; that is, that there won't be any need to calculate the credits on that basis.

Also, with respect to the formal labelling of the courses as general level and advanced, that will conclude as of September 1993. So there will not be those three different categorizations.

However, the pace at which the full implementation takes place is being left to school boards to determine within that three-year time frame, and that's taking very much into consideration the kinds of things that school boards have said to us in terms of wanting to have that kind of time frame within which to fully implement the changes in the teaching that will take place inside the classroom. I think that's the distinction.

I can tell the member opposite that, given the questions that have been asked, we will be sending out some clear explanations around this issue, so that again that issue --

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

Hon Mr Silipo: -- can be hopefully understood in a better way.

Mrs Cunningham: From this interchange that we've had in the House, I can see that the minister does recognize that there's tremendous confusion out in the schools, but for myself as critic, I can say only that there's total chaos in the ministry itself.

I would like to make this observation: When the minister told us that he had consulted with the boards on many facets of education with regard to this whole singular issue of destreaming, I can tell you that this weekend in Windsor we were told by the Ontario Public School Boards' Association that the only document it had any consultation over at all -- and that was a singular response -- was Transition Years, nothing else.

Minister, with regard to the confusion today and with regard to the chaos within your ministry, why are you proceeding with those destreaming programs next September when we won't even have the core documents, as you stated, for another month or two? Why are you insisting that you proceed with September 1993 when really you have now told the boards that it's okay to do this in September 1996?

Hon Mr Silipo: I need to clarify that I haven't said anything different or new today that I haven't been saying to people for the last four or five months on this in terms of the time lines. There is no change. If having some information that spells this out line by line is what's needed, then we'll make sure that it gets out there.

Quite frankly, the Transition Years document that the member opposite speaks about is essentially the document on which the discussion around this issue has taken place and out of which has come our decision to go forward with the common core curriculum to the end of grade 9. The chaos that she speaks of, I'm not sure where that comes from, in her mind and elsewhere.

Clearly, there are a lot of experiences that have already been in place. There are a number of boards and a number of schools that have been offering this kind of a common core curriculum already. It isn't something new that is being pulled off the shelf and handed to people. It's continuing, in effect, with something that has been in place for a few years and suggesting a slow but steady process of implementation and phasing in that takes into account the experiences that school boards have and where they are in the process of implementation, given their own experiences and how ready they are to do full implementation or partial implementation by September 1993.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The staff can rest assured this is not about stable funding; this is about a Campbell Soup plant closure that is taking place in my riding. Campbell Soup in Chatham announced on Thursday it was closing its facility, laying off 175 full-time people and 225 seasonal jobs, which is going to affect 75 growers in my area.

Mr Speaker, I must remind you it has nothing to do with Bill 40. What it has to do with is a federal Tory policy called free trade, which is deinstitutionalizing and decentralizing the jobs in my riding.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Hope: If the Tories would quiet down, I could ask a simple question that's affecting the people in my riding. I know when they have a weekend in a convention, they get all worked up.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take his seat, please.

Would the member place his question directly, please.

Mr Hope: I'm trying to get to the

preamble about the jobs that are being lost in my riding. There is an alternative. To the Minister of Agriculture and Food, as you can see, my community has put forward an alternative, an ethanol plant, to try to help alleviate the job losses and the effects to the agricultural community in my riding. They have made a proposal to you.

My question is, Mr Minister, when can we see the positive effects the provincial government can play to help my farmers and help the workers who are being affected by this plant closure by putting an ethanol plant in my community? I want to know from the minister, what are you doing to help the people of Kent county with an ethanol plant, since we were one of the first ones in southwestern Ontario to have an ethanol pumping station?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The question of the ethanol industry has become very popular over the last year or so. In response to other questions in the House, we did establish an interministerial committee to look into the ethanol industry and see what form government support should take. That committee brought its report in about a month ago.

There were several suggestions in the report which may be acted upon by the government. They mentioned and discussed the possibility of how the government could support research and development. They brought up the issue of whether we should provide funding for pilot projects; whether we should provide assistance to do market development and encourage market use. They also brought up the issue as to whether the government should get involved in loan guarantees for different projects across the province.

I think the member may be aware that there are many different proposals being put to the government at this point in time. The proposal that he mentions today is a very good one because it's developed by the people in Kent county. It has a lot of merit and will be given first-rate consideration by the government if it has money to put into the industry.

Mr Hope: I know the minister has said that he has a number of consultation papers out there, but one of the important things that I must emphasize to the minister now is that this plant closure is supposed to wind down by April, which means that we don't have a lot of time to do a lot of studies.

You're absolutely right: This is put together by the farmers in my community. I would ask the minister if he could make it a priority to help restore some of the confidence of the farming community in my area and also those workers who are being affected. I'm wondering if the minister could assure my community that he will take a serious look at the proposal that's being put forward by the farmers in my community.

Hon Mr Buchanan: I want to assure the member that we will give it very serious consideration. Furthermore, I happen to believe that when communities come together, as happened down in Kent county, and come up with a proposal, very often those ideas put together by the people in the rural communities are the best ideas a government can support, and we look forward to supporting those kinds of ideas in the very near future.

ONTARIO HYDRO

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question's for the Minister of Energy. Minister, you will know that today the outgoing chair of Ontario Hydro, just before closing his door on the way out, announced that Hydro plans to chop $7 billion in capital expenditures over 10 years.

This announcement appears to be nothing more than smoke and mirrors. It claims to lower electricity rates, but it doesn't provide any cost breakdown whatsoever. In fact, "defer" is mentioned seven times in the announcement. For example, the Manitoba purchase will be deferred for five years under a "mutually acceptable" arrangement.

The minister will know that over six months ago in this House I raised a concern connected with the Manitoba purchase, and I'm asking the minister today: How much is this "mutually acceptable" deferral of the Manitoba purchase going to cost Hydro's ratepayers?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Energy): I guess the member doesn't understand what "mutually acceptable" means. Mutually acceptable, in the case of deferring the Manitoba purchase, means that none of the penalties will apply. Ontario Hydro is in direct discussions with Manitoba Hydro. They're the two proponents of this deal. If and when they have a mutually acceptable deferral, then I'd be happy to provide the member with any details that flow out of that.

Mr McGuinty: The minister is guaranteeing there will be no costs whatsoever, and I'm pleased to hear that. The Manitoba purchase unfortunately is not the only project that's going to be deferred by Mr Eliesen. Perhaps the greatest pressing concern arises from the deferral of the decision affecting the jobs of 25% of the good people living in Bruce county. Over 3,000 jobs are tied to future of the Bruce A generating station, and these people are, understandably, extremely concerned about their future. What you've done, Mr Minister, is you've placed them in a painful limbo.

You tell us that you need further review of the matter in order to make a decision regarding the future of Bruce A; in fact, two studies have already been done specifically related to Bruce A. The last study with respect to Bruce A was contained in a report filed by the chairman of Ontario Hydro, Mr Eliesen himself, submitted just over a month ago, to the board of directors. In that report they specifically address the issue of mothballing Bruce A and restarting it at some point or retiring it.

My question is: What is the real reason, Mr Minister, you are deferring this decision? Surely you do not need another study. Could it be because your ultimate intention is to ignore the studies and the reports done to date and to develop your own study with a preset goal of determining Bruce A must go? Could it in fact be that the criteria you wish to apply are political rather than objective?

Hon Mr Charlton: I can understand why the member for Ottawa South would like to have the province believe that this member, this minister, is making these decisions.

The reality is, he's right. There was a recent study completed of the retubing costs at Bruce. Those studies did not satisfy the board of Ontario Hydro, never mind the minister. The board made its own decision in this respect. This was not a decision dictated by the minister.

The review that will occur that has been ordered by the Hydro board as a result of its decisions this morning will occur over the next six months and will not have any immediate impact on jobs at Bruce.

The member is well aware that there has been a controversy that has plagued the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party when it was in power and is still an outstanding issue out there in terms of what the real costs of having to substantially retube and refurbish nuclear plants are. For the first time in this province we've made a decision that we want to get at the real answers in the public domain to those questions and, as a result of this review, the minister will consider an independent public review of this package that's produced in six months.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Energy. Mr Minister, you are not hesitant in issuing a directive in the form of a letter, without requiring cabinet approval, for the purpose of firing the president of Ontario Hydro. Now that you realize the power you have under Bill 118, would you not issue a directive to the board of Ontario Hydro to come up with some immediate plans for staff reduction?

Our sources tell us there are between 5,000 and 7,200 surplus employees at Ontario Hydro. Your news release today from Ontario Hydro says only that the result of that implementation might be a reduction in the increase. I ask you, Mr Minister, to issue a directive to that board to come up with a three-year plan not only to bring this 8% increase down to 2%, but a plan for the future to actually come down to zero and negative increases.

Hon Mr Charlton: The question from the member for Lanark-Renfrew is one that puzzles me a little bit. All through the hearings on Bill 118 the member opposite and his colleagues in the Liberal Party shuddered at the thought of this government having the directive power in 118 and bemoaned the fact that they expected us to use it to affect and hamper the day-to-day operations of Ontario Hydro. Now he's asking me to do precisely that.

More specifically, though, in relation to the question he's raised, Hydro has already announced staff cuts of 2,000 to 3,000. A hiring freeze is now in place at Ontario Hydro. The member well knows that those specific targets have already been set and the minister has already directed the board of Ontario Hydro to proceed, to leave no stone unturned to find further operational cuts.

Mr Jordan: While other businesses in Ontario are going bankrupt and the ones remaining are doing their very best to reduce operating costs and stay in business and keep jobs in Ontario, what is happening at Ontario Hydro is continually increasing rates, losing revenue, and you, Mr Minister, say you do not want to interfere. Through your letter and directive you in fact did interfere and assist in the removal of the president of an organization who did have plans to bring the organization into a businesslike corporation. Now you've got it completely adrift. They don't know where they're going to end up.

Mr Minister, you have the directive power to solve the problems. Instead of promises to limit rate increases in 10 years, we should be focusing on zero rate increases. Will you commit to a three-year plan that can make Ontario Hydro more competitive and lead to an actual rate decrease in the future?

Hon Mr Charlton: Oh, would that the member for Lanark-Renfrew had been around to give that kind of advice to the Conservative government 15 years ago. For 75 years, Ontario Hydro grew unfettered in this province. Tories never had the courage to tell Hydro to reduce operations. Liberals were only there for five years, but for five years the Liberals never had the courage to tell Ontario Hydro to cut its operations.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: This government is proceeding to ensure that for the first time in its history, Ontario Hydro will be downsizing significantly its operations. We'll do our best with a bad situation left to us by those who preceded us.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a question for the Minister of Education. It was awful cold this morning in Welland and it's going to be a long, cold winter. If you're one of those kids at Alexander Kuska school, where you've got to try to get your education in a leaky, draughty, cold portable, I tell you, you're not going to have much prospect of a successful school year when you've got to battle the climate around you as well as all of the other struggles you've got to engage in.

Now look, the Minister of Education has known for a long time that those portables were long overdue for replacement. People like Roman Kruczynski, a leader in the parents' association there, have been fighting with the Ministry of Education for years.

Now's the time to do it. We need the jobs and we're going to get better value per dollar. This is a growth area of the community and those kids deserve better, don't they?

Please, would the minister tell us when the Ministry of Education is going to fund the replacement of those portables that should have been done a long time ago?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Education): I'm aware of the problems that exist in that particular community and that particular school. I can tell the member that we are now looking, as I've already indicated in the House, at the question of the capital allocation, which of course will be for the 1995 year, as is the three-year advance process, but which I know is none the less of help to boards in terms of their planning for future-year building.

As I indicated, I think, in answer to a question earlier, I expect to be able, before the end of this month, to give a very clear indication as to either making the announcement or giving an indication as to when those allocations will be there. But I know that school board has put forward very clearly the needs it has, including that particular school, and we are looking at that very carefully.

Mr Kormos: The problem is that the parents of those kids believed the ministry two years ago when the ministry said it was going to consult and it was going to let the local authorities set the priorities. After all, who's in a better position to know what the priorities should be for capital expenditure than the board itself, the people most closely and directly responsible to the electorate?

You see, the families of the children at Alexander Kuska and the board bought into that, but they got stiffed. The fact is that they made recommendations, they put Alexander Kuska at the top of the list, and what did the ministry do? The ministry said, "No way, Jose."

I tell you, are they going to have it done to them again or is the ministry going to give credit to those hardworking women and men this time, those hardworking, honest families that want a little bit better education environment for their children; you know, classrooms where you don't have to worry about leaks in the roof or cold air blowing in under the door?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can't answer for what happened two years ago. I can say to the member, however, that we've made it very clear to the school boards this year that we expect them to be setting the priority listings, and we would then look at those priority listings in relation to the needs of other school boards.

I know this particular school is at the top of the board's list, and I can tell the member that it is also high on the priority list within the region. I think that when the announcements are made, we can hopefully respond to the concerns that have been raised --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Blah, blah, blah.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, please come to order.

Hon Mr Silipo: -- but I'm not in a position at this point to make a specific announcement with respect to that school.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): He's not here, Ron.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): We do not have the minister in the chamber.

Mr Eddy: The minister was in a moment ago.

The Speaker: He has magically appeared. Okay.

Mr Eddy: On September 30, in a statement before the Legislature, I informed the minister of dissatisfaction with his lack of response to the county of Middlesex alternative package on the issue of annexation, dissatisfaction which is now somewhat more intense.

The people of Middlesex county and the city of London conveyed their serious concerns to the minister about the two days of hearings which were held in London on September 24 and 25, 1992. At that time, county Warden Frank Gare respectfully asked that the minister respond to the county's alternative package, which was presented to him in July 1992.

The 24,000 acres proposed in the county's report to be annexed to the city of London is very reasonable, certainly much more reasonable than the minister's decision to annex 64,000 acres. County council is frustrated that the minister has left its report unanswered for several months, perhaps collecting dust.

Why, Mr Minister, have you failed to respond to the county of Middlesex alternative package?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Municipal Affairs): It's my understanding that the county was also intending to appear before city council in London to see whether the city of London would agree to its proposal, so perhaps the member can tell me whether that's been done. My understanding is that it hasn't been done and that the city of London will not agree to a change in the announced boundaries that have already been made.

It's fine for the member to say that all will be well in London and Middlesex if we go ahead and accept the county plan, but the fact of the matter is, we're at exactly the same position now that we were before. There is no agreement between the county and the city. There is no agreement on the boundary lines between some of the townships. That's why a decision had to be made through the arbitration process, because it couldn't be decided at the local level.

Mr Eddy: The minister's question does not answer my question.

The 24,000 acres proposed in the county's alternative is twice the amount of land that would serve the city of London until the year 2026 by virtue of the city's own study. As well, the alternative package is supported by all of the county's municipalities.

There have been recent newspaper stories indicating that the minister is considering changes to the legislation. However, while the minister is refusing to discuss these changes, he is also ignoring the county's request for a reply to its proposal.

Mr Minister, will you respond to the county of Middlesex alternative package, and when?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think I did indicate in the answer to the first question that there is no agreement in the county or in the city as to what the boundary lines should be. That's been the case for the last 11 years.

Somebody has to make a decision. The honourable member was actually the administrator for the county when all of this was going on, and he knows better than any of us in this room the difficulties. He was not able to agree to anything with the city. He couldn't provide the leadership when he was right there working in order to find an agreement.

The fact of the matter is, somebody has to make a decision. His government didn't do anything for the period of time that they were in power to resolve this issue. This is another example of a messy, difficult issue that the Liberal government left to us, and we've decided to make a decision.

PETITIONS

COUNTY RESTRUCTURING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition that says:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs has seen fit to ignore the council of the township of Tiny and their plea for reconsideration of boundary line changes within the municipality; and

"Whereas the minister has stated that restructuring within the county of Simcoe will be implemented,

"Now therefore the taxpayers of the township of Tiny find it necessary to band together and lobby against the implementation of the restructuring of the county of Simcoe.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing the County of Simcoe Act until the provincial government deals with the township of Tiny in a fair and equitable manner."

There are 266 names, and I've signed my name to that.

STABLE FUNDING

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a petition that's on the issue of stable funding, and I'll just do a

summary of it. It has a number of whereases, and it says that two thirds of the farmers of Ontario do not belong to any of the farm organizations, nor is there concrete evidence that any GFO, general farm organization, in Ontario has been beneficial to the overall wellbeing of Ontario farmers. "Therefore let it be known that the undersigned object strongly" and oppose the legislation to empower stable funding in Ontario. I affix my signature to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I have a petition from 135 citizens of Middlesex county petitioning the Legislature of the province of Ontario to reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London. I've affixed my signature.

LIQUOR STORES

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition, from residents and the people who live in and around the village of Maxville. It's expressing concern over the closure of the liquor store one day a week, and the petition is addressed as follows. There are 751 names, and I have affixed my name to it:

"To the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, hereby petition the LCBO and the Ontario government to refrain from closing store number 309, village of Maxville, because of the undue hardships that this will cause other businesses within the village."

I submit this to the Clerk, sir.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a petition that's signed by perhaps over 2,000 residents of the city of Windsor who by their signatures protest the closure of the Wyandotte Street East store number 33 and urge the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Ontario government to reconsider the decision of the closing of the store at 4835 Wyandotte Street East. I have affixed my name to that petition as well.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act reflect the fact that more women, more members of visible minorities and more part-time employees are in the workforce today than ever before; and

"Whereas these workers deserve the same access to the right to join together and bargain collectively as workers have had in the past under the act, which has tended to serve workers in large industrial centres; and

"Whereas the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act will bring about greater worker participation and reduce conflicts and confrontation in labour-management relations,

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

"That the Ontario government and all the members of the Legislature effect speedy passage of changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act so as to promote better labour-management relations and to provide women, visible minorities and part-time workers with the same right as other workers have under the act."

This is signed by 57 constituents of my riding, and I have added my name to it.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition that's signed by 57 residents of the county of Middlesex in response to the arbitrator's report for the greater London area. My constituents have asked that the arbitrator's report be set aside, because it does not reflect the expressed wishes of the majority who participated in arbitration hearings, it awards too extensive an annexation to the city of London, and it will jeopardize the viability of the county of Middlesex and our rural way of life.

I have signed my name to this petition.

GAMBLING

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

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the NDP government is considering legalizing casinos and video lottery terminals in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas there is great public concern about the negative impact that will result from the abovementioned implementations,

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

"That the government stop looking to casinos and video lottery terminals as a 'quick-fix' solution to its fiscal problems and concentrate instead on eliminating wasteful government spending."

I have affixed my signature as well.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO TAX AND LIQUOR CONTROL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (RETURNING RESIDENTS), 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC ET LES ALCOOLS (RÉSIDENTS DE RETOUR)

On motion by Ms Wark-Martyn, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill 85,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act and the Liquor Control Act to Provide for the Payment of Tax and Markups by Returning Residents of Ontario / Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac et la

Loi sur les alcools de façon à prévoir le paiement de la taxe et des marges bénéficiaires par les résidents de retour en Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you have a few words of explanation?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Yes, Mr Speaker. The amendments in this bill make possible an agreement between the province and the federal government to have federal customs officials collect Ontario tobacco taxes and liquor markups.

People entering Ontario from outside Canada with more cigarettes, cut tobacco or cigars than allowed under federal returning resident exemptions must pay an amount equal to the Ontario tax due. This amount will be collected at the point of entry.

Similarly, people entering Ontario from outside Canada with more liquor than is allowed under federal returning resident exemptions are required to pay the applicable markup to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. This amount will also be collected at the point of entry by federal customs officers on behalf of the LCBO.

The bill also makes administrative changes to the Tobacco Tax Act. The effective date of the amendments is on proclamation.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted today there were no statements by the ministry during the appropriate time. This minister has placed a bill forward and I would like to point out that I believe it's an appropriate point of order that notice was not given, no statement was made, and as the critic for the Ministry of Revenue I had no opportunity whatever to respond to the proposal coming forward by the minister.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): This is not a point of order.

GRAND RIVER HOME IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES AND SERVICES LTD ACT, 1992

On motion by Mr Farnan, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr52,

An Act to revive Grand River Home Improvements Building Products, Supplies and Services Ltd.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING CODE ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 SUR LE CODE DU BÂTIMENT

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I move third reading of Bill 112,

An Act to revise the Building Code Act / Loi révisant la

Loi sur le code du bâtiment.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): In the absence of the minister, the member for Niagara Falls moves third reading of Bill 112,

An Act to revise the Building Code Act. Do you have any comments, any statement?

Ms Harrington: It's certainly with pleasure and I'm very proud today to move third reading of Bill 112. This bill certainly brings forward changes which are long overdue.

In fact, last week I met with the chief building officials of Ontario at their conference in Richmond Hill and they are eagerly looking forward to the passage of this bill. It will lead to more efficient and streamlined building regulatory systems. It will support industry efforts to introduce more efficient, safe and innovative building techniques and materials.

Since the act was first introduced in 1974, a great deal has changed: new materials, designs and building techniques abound. Also, society today expects health and safety standards plus resource conservation and environmental conservation standards. Simply put, builders want to be able to introduce less expensive, more efficient building materials and the public wants safe, energy-efficient buildings.

The Building Code Act governs the administration and enforcement of the Ontario Building Code and the regulations used every day across this province. These revisions will bring the act up to date with the new realities. The reforms we are introducing are the result of several years of consultation with our building industry and its related professions: municipal building officials, home builders, associations -- people who work directly with the code every day.

After public hearings and clause-by-clause review by the standing committee of the Legislature, consensus has been reached on a broad number of amendments. Bill 112 balances the need to enshrine health ans safety standards and the need to respond to the values and technology of today's Ontario.

First, the legislation will allow municipal building officials to streamline the building process by issuing conditional permits; that is, as long as zoning and other approvals have been obtained, construction can start. The remaining approvals must be obtained as the construction proceeds.

Second, the Ontario Plumbing Code will be transferred from the Ontario Water Resources Act to the Building Code Act. The new legislation will also help builders to cut costs by allowing the use of innovative materials, equivalent materials, techniques and other construction systems that are not authorized now by the code, as long as they have the same level of safety and performance.

The legislation also allows for the establishment of standards for existing buildings in such areas as maintenance, resource conservation and environmental protection. The existing buildings across this province, including our growing stock of affordable housing units, are a very important asset that we have to protect and preserve for future generations. Standards for existing buildings will be developed in a gradual process, in consultation with all the stakeholders.

We have also placed a very strong emphasis on health and safety. We are updating the process for building inspectors to obtain a search warrant to inspect a building when there is a concern about a safety problem. There will also be heavier fines for people who break the building code safety regulations.

To sum up the key points, it paves the way for the introduction of safe, innovative, cost-efficient building materials and construction techniques; it allows the use of less expensive and safe new building materials which will help our building industry become more competitive; it will place a greater emphasis on energy efficiency and resource conservation; it makes it possible to develop a uniform maintenance standard for all our existing buildings, including our stock of affordable housing and rental units.

Bill 112 is part of our commitment to make it easier to produce better buildings at a lower cost. We want to make housing more affordable and our building industry more competitive.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm pleased to participate in this debate and to support the government in the legislation it has introduced. Not that we believe it is perfect: The opposition did introduce a number of amendments that we felt would have improved the legislation, but having said that, we think the government has taken a major step forward in bringing this legislation forward.

There certainly has been a positive reaction by the interest groups and the industry; also by consumer groups. You can see why, because really, as the parliamentary assistant explained, for the first time now the building code is going to cover things such as new materials, innovative technologies and services that obviously were not part of the code when it was last amended, some nine years ago.

I don't think anybody in this Legislature would argue with the need to enhance safety standards and to streamline. Those are two very important aspects. One added bonus is that it should help promote economic activity, and we certainly need that in the province of Ontario today.

I mentioned that it was last amended nine years ago; however, in the fall of 1989 the Liberal government introduced legislation that bore a marked similarity to what the government ended up producing. However, the Liberal government legislation, which was called Bill 103, added a number of things that quite frankly the interest groups, consumers' groups and industry groups seemed to quite like.

One of the them, for instance, was the idea of the certified professional program, where at peak times the municipalities could appoint certified professionals to assist them in trying to get rid of the backlog. This was endorsed by numerous organizations, including, I believe, the Canadian Bar Association, the Ontario Home Builders' Association and a number of others. I think the Urban Development Institute, if I'm not mistaken, supported that as well. I regret that the government did not include that. I think the municipalities would have welcomed it and it would have helped the streamlining process.

The government did move in one other area, which I'm happy to acknowledge, and that was the ungraded lumber issue. This was very contentious in our agricultural areas, in particular, and after a lot of pressure the NDP government did decide to amend the regulation related to that, which I think has been quite welcomed on the part of all parties.

One of the issues, though, that the government did not move on was that of including existing buildings under the standards of the Ontario Building Code Act. I am just going to read from that particular section, subsection 34(2), where the government has now given the cabinet power to make regulations "to establish standards that existing buildings must meet even though no construction is proposed, including regulations...establishing standards for maintenance, occupancy and repair."

That sounds like a fine idea and certainly when it relates to health and public safety, I think it's something we can support. But the problem is that the government has given us no idea where it is going in this direction and right now this uncertainty is the last thing the apartment building industry needs. They were very opposed to the government including it in Bill 112. They said: "Please withdraw it. Have separate legislation, if you must, but spell out what you're going to do. Don't leave us this vague thing which may add enormously to our costs and yet not give us a sufficient remedy to get those costs back."

Yes, the government members will say, "Well, they can go to the rent control board and they can apply for getting some of those costs back, if they need to do it." But if all existing buildings are made to comply with the current codes, even though they might be 60 or 70 years old, that could be an enormous undertaking and certainly not be covered by the 3% that the government says would be allowable on top of any rent increase for this type of purpose.

So that is the conundrum and it is a difficulty that, on the one hand, the government has said, "We want you to do this," which I think we all support, but on the other, it hasn't given us a mechanism where it can be paid for.

My preference would have been to deal with this through separate legislation, a separate piece, an amendment, at a later time, because the government has said, quite frankly, it doesn't know how it's going to do it. What we would have recommended is get your act in order first, then bring in the legislation. It would have made a lot more sense than going forward in this way.

I would urge the government to please consult with the various affected parties in the industry before it goes ahead with its regulations. Make sure that it is not only effective and efficient but also possible. Do not put landlords in this province to the stage where they cannot comply with the Building Code Act because they can't afford it, can't pay for it and therefore don't do it. Let's see if we can work out some sort of way that this can be done in a sensitive way.

There are a number of other issues that did come up and we did file numerous amendments. Unfortunately, not too many of them actually saw the light of day. In fact, I think this is the first piece of legislation I've worked on personally where none of our amendments were actually supported by the government although, interestingly enough, some of our amendments were supported by government members. I think that after they came back from the lunch break, though, they were told, "Please don't show up for the vote," because those members were suddenly absent.

But I do thank, for their very sensitive contributions to the debate, the members who did argue in favour of a number of our amendments. We did try to be very constructive about it.

In particular, I would like to thank a number of groups which were extremely helpful in the consultation process: the Toronto Area Chief Building Officials Committee, the Ontario Home Builders' Association, the Large Municipalities Chief Building Officials, the Canadian Bar Association, the Price Club, the Urban Development Institute and the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. I hope I haven't left anybody out.

Those groups came to our hearings by invitation and I found their contributions invaluable. Certainly, I hope that it will give the government a sense of direction where it might like to go with some of the regulations.

As the parliamentary assistant has mentioned, the regulations for the Building Code Act are in the Ontario Building Code. This is really the meat and substance of it. The Building Code Act is just the framework. So we would urge the government to open up that consultation process for the regulations. I think there's a feeling out there in this province that the government operates too much behind closed doors. Regulations that are put through a cabinet process, which are never aired in the Legislature, which are never subject to public hearings, I think are increasingly being scrutinized by the public. There is a reaction to it out there.

In order to make sure these regulations work, it is necessary not only to consult with some of the broader interest groups but to take it beyond that and let people know what you're doing and why you're doing it so that they can have a chance and an opportunity to submit their ideas.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that our caucus is pleased to support the amendments to the Building Code Act. While it isn't as perfect as we would like it to be, I guess maybe we're setting a trend with the Yes campaign on the referendum, that we're going to work with all-party unity. Again, just like the Yes campaign, we might say the document isn't perfect but it is well worth supporting for the very positive benefits it brings. I'd like to congratulate all the parties involved and the parliamentary assistant and Mr Tilson and Mrs Marland, the critic for the third party, for their participation in this very worthwhile effort.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Niagara Falls, did you have any comments?

Ms Harrington: Yes. I do want to thank the member for Eglinton for her support, and I want to assure her that the consultations all around the development of a code for existing buildings and the regulations under the act will certainly be broad-based and involve all the stakeholders who are eager to start on it.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further comments? If not, the member for Eglinton, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms Poole: Yes. I just want to respond very briefly and say that I'm pleased to have that assurance from the parliamentary assistant. There is one issue in particular that I haven't mentioned which perhaps she could take back to the table. The Ontario Home Builders' Association is quite concerned about one of the prospective regulations which requires full-height basement insulation in houses, which will add, in its estimation, $3,000 to the cost of the home. They point out, I think quite rightly, that the cost savings to the home owner as far as energy savings will not even reach this $3,000 figure. We would urge the government to take a look at that.

I think our home building industry is in fairly serious straits right now and struggling to keep afloat in this recession, so every bit of help the government could give in this regard I'm sure would be very much appreciated. We want to make sure they have a balance between what's in the interests of the consumer and also what's practical and what can be done without damaging a very productive industry that has brought much prosperity to Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I believe the last time the Building Code Act was amended was in 1974, as has been previously indicated. Bill 103, which the Liberals put forward, was proposed in 1989 and for obvious reasons never reached fruition.

I believe many people around the province, including the Liberals, to an extent, have given the impression that the bill is similar to Bill 103, and it clearly has, as the member for Eglinton indicated, some substantial changes. I think it is for that reason that we support the attempt to change many of the provisions of the Building Code Act. But we with the Progressive Conservative Party have many serious reservations, as we have indicated in the committee.

It has been stated by the member for Eglinton and the member for Niagara Falls that this bill will improve the economy, and already, as the member for Eglinton has indicated in her response, we are finding out that there are many people around this province who are concerned as to the effects that the building code will have on our economy.

I received a letter, similar to the one which the member for Eglinton mentioned, from a constituent of mine, a home builder in Bolton. It was received this morning. He was concerned with the requirement for full-height insulation in all residential basements. It was referred to in this letter that the upgrade of such a proposal will, as the member for Eglinton indicates, add at least $3,000 to the price of a new home, and of course this is a very strange development, particularly when we're concerned with the affordability of housing in a slumping market.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): That's crap.

Mr Tilson: It's not. When you compare it to what the building code is attempting to do with heat efficiency, the equation of $3,000 for the price of new home, my constituent in Bolton tells me, will have an average carrying cost of $300, while the resulting energy savings will be approximately 14% of a typical heating bill. That's an annual saving of $120 to $140. So already we have a development from the building code which is going to cost $150 or more because of this new requirement for full-height insulation in all residential basements. This doesn't make sense with the economy that we have, specifically in the housing industry.

My constituent tells me, in a letter to me which I received this morning: "Our industry has been severely hurting through these difficult economic times and extremely high lot levies which has created layoffs of over 65% of employees.

"This additional charge will certainly create fewer sales in the new home market and spur more buyers to the resale market, which does not create the employment that the new home market does.

"Our industry and the consumer does not turn a blind eye to energy conservation but realizes that conservation must make economical sense."

So my constituent has given very good facts to state that the energy conservation that is being suggested by the government does not make good economic sense considering the cost of what it takes to put this together.

So we spent four days on this bill in hearings, two of which were hearing delegations and the other two were on clause-by-clause; a very strange type of thing, particularly when these hearings are very expensive to undertake.

The type of bill that I think more appropriately should be in public hearings would be something that deals with the economy, with our fiscal problems, with some of these unbelievable labour positions that are being put forward by the government and even the whole subject of auto insurance. But instead we had public hearings on the Building Code Act, which was Bill 112. I must say I had a great deal of difficulty, particularly when I had received all of the written submissions that were made by the delegations in advance. This is something that could have been done in committee of the whole, and it could have saved the taxpayer of this province a substantial amount of money.

I indicated that our party is concerned with the number of reservations that we have with respect to this bill. I believe that it's going to result in more downloading to municipalities. It will result because of the added regulations and the vagueness that's being put forward in these regulations. It's going to require larger building departments in the municipalities all across this province. It's going to require that those building inspectors be more qualified. They will have to be more trained. Who is going to pay for those things?

I'll tell you who's going to pay for those people: it's the municipalities of this province. It won't be the province; it will be the municipalities, and that will result in higher property taxes, something that certainly all of us in the Progressive Conservative Party have fought many times, particularly with the proposals that have been put forward by the previous Liberal government. I would have thought that this NDP government, which made many of the same comments, would be averse to putting more downloading of these types of expenses on to the municipalities, specifically with the restrictions that have been put forward by the Treasurer of 1%, 2% and 2% transfer payment increases.

There's only so much money in the pot and it's going to now cost municipalities with their building departments because of the added responsibilities that they are going to have. This will of course deal with accessory apartments and granny flats and those types of additional housing ventures that are being proposed by this government. All of those things are going to be administered by the municipalities, not the province. I have grave concerns as to what effect that will have on the property taxpayer of this province.

Some mention was spent during the committee on the subject of the certified professional, and specifically the Urban Development Institute commented on that. That was something that was put forward in the previous Bill 103 which never reached debate in this House, in which a provision was made for a certified professional program. The Urban Development Institute spoke of that in these hearings and indicated that the private sector could provide professionals such as engineers and architects who might be qualified to certify plans complying with the Ontario Building Code. That whole concept is being dropped.

The difficulty is, we all know that eventually, probably when this government goes out of office, the economy of this province is going to increase substantially and there will be another housing boom. More building of new houses will take place and we will need more building inspectors throughout the province to implement the many new buildings that will be constructed around this province. That means that the building staffs will mushroom.

There's a great flexibility of building inspectors, that in boom times many, many inspectors are needed and at times like this they're not needed. So they're either going to have to be laid off during these weak times or they're going to have to pay larger salaries to do work that really isn't necessary. That is why the proposal that was put forward in the previous Liberal bill we in this party would agree with, that you would never be able to properly staff building departments to meet the high volume in rush periods that could come about during prosperous times.

There was a suggestion made that these certified professionals might have conflicts of interest. I don't think so. I think it's a reasonable proposal. There are many municipalities which retain accountants, which retain lawyers, which retain engineers for specified matters which their specific municipality can't handle. Whether it's in boom times or whether not it's in boom times, they do farm out certain areas. Obviously, if conflicts of interest arise, those people don't take those positions. But for some unearthly reason this government almost forced the municipalities to increase the civil service again, which will result in higher property taxes.

Certified professionals -- and I'm referring to the Urban Development Institute submission -- would have shifted some of the functions on some permits to the private sector and permitted faster permit service in boom times and saved the taxpayers from employing redundant employees in short periods. I think that's part of the issue that I think this government should have looked at and for some unearthly reason has decided against. When the municipalities realize that, that they could have retained the certified professional -- instead, their building departments are going to mushroom all at the cost to the property taxpayer.

There was another proposal or another amendment that we had serious reservations on and that had to do with the cancellation of a permit which was issued in error, specifically clause 8(10)(

a) of the bill, and I'd like to simply refer to that:

"Subject to

section 25, the chief building official may revoke a permit issued under this act,

"(

a) if it was issued on mistaken or false or incorrect information."

The difficulty I have with respect to that

section -- when you build a house, when you build an apartment building, when you build a structure, you go to a building inspection department and obtain a permit and you rely on it. You rely that the obligations you have to meet have been met -- otherwise you wouldn't get the permit -- and all of the requirements that you have to meet. It sets forth what your funding is going to do, what you're going to be obliged to do to put up a specific structure.

What this sections means is that if you get halfway up in the building structure and all of a sudden find there's been a mistake, that there's been an error made by the building inspection department, this says: "Sorry, we made a mistake. We're going to revoke the permit, notwithstanding the fact that you've been progressing with this building under a building permit issued by our municipality."

I don't know what effect that's going to have on legal obligations. Can you imagine if you had to build a home? You obtained certain financing, you had made certain plans, you'd paid an architect, you'd retained other people to assist you in the construction of this house and, halfway through, you find out that the building inspector had made an error.

What do you do? Does that mean you've got to tear the house down? Does that mean your mortgage company's going to come along and say: "Sorry, you still have to pay for all these things that you've been forced to pay to, but you're going to have to pay more money to undo it. We're not going to give you a loan for that because the whole financing issue will be then out of whack"? It's going to put the owner of a home in a very, very difficult position and I take strong exception to that section.

The Urban Development Institute also referred to that

section and expressed its concerns. They commented and said that:

"A building permit is a vital document relied on by builders, owners and mortgagees. If all the information filed on all the plans was correct, and people rely on that permit, where do they stand if the CBO decides he made an error that somehow goes beyond mistaken information?

"Take the case of a permit issued contrary to the zoning bylaw because of an honest mistake in the building department, without any attempt to mislead by the applicant. It is clear that at present an innocent party who relies on a permit issued in the case of such an error has a claim for damages against the municipality, even though the municipality can stop the construction. This provision might call that damage claim into question and should be removed from the bill."

I think it's that legal implication they're afraid of. You're in the process of building and all of a sudden the building permit is revoked. What are you going to do? You can't go against the municipality because it has revoked the permit. The structure that you have which was legal on Monday could, all of a sudden, on Tuesday be considered illegal. You don't have a building permit because under subsection 8(10) the building inspector has revoked that permit.

It puts the home builders of this province in a very, very difficult position, because honest mistakes are made. They're not made frequently, but they are made. They could be a matter of a lot severance, or with respect to having a structure that's too close to the lot line. It may mean, for example, the subject of minor variances that the owner is being forced to undertake but, at that point, notwithstanding anything that happens, if the mistake was made by the building department, that permit is revoked. It puts the people of this province in a very, very difficult position.

The most difficult issue we had in our party, the Progressive Conservative Party, was the subject of labour regulations -- labour is on my mind, Mr Labour Minister -- the subject of regulations, the expansion of regulations that are not going to be dealt with in this House, the requirements that aren't going to be dealt with in this House. We're going to have regulations which will be put forward without notice at any time, and that whole matter has been expanded substantially as a result of Bill 112.

I must read to you an amendment to one

section of the bill. The government would put forward, during the committee, its proposed amendment, which of course carried. They have the majority on the committee and can do anything they wish, notwithstanding the position of the opposition parties. Then they would put the rationale down below.

Certainly, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party had a great deal of difficulty understanding the complexities of some of the amendments, specifically the ones dealing with amendments to

section 34, which has to do specifically with all the regulations that can be put out by order in council.

One of the sections they added during the committee hearings was

section 6.1. This is one of the areas that can be passed by order in council. It sets forth that they can do this by regulation:

"Setting out rules and policies to be observed in the

interpretation of the building code by any person exercising a power or discretion conferred under the act or the building code."

You can say, "What does that mean?" Well, this is what the rationale says. This is the best part of the hearing, when we had this read to us as the reasons for the amendments. I really wish you well if you can follow what I'm about to read to you because, I can tell you, we had a great deal of difficulty understanding what it said. If one can't understand the rationale which explains the amendment, how can one possibly understand the amendment? This is what it says:

"Given the increasing size and complexity of the building code, the fact that it provides no guidance for those persons who are required to apply discretion in making regulatory decisions has proved problematic. As we continue to encourage the industry (designers, manufacturers, builders) to be more innovative, there is a concomitant increase in responsibility placed on those charged with making decisions which require

interpretation of the intent of the building code, including the acceptability or sufficiency of compliance regarding proposed 'equivalents' of new materials, products, systems or designs."

Isn't that wonderful? I'll read on, because it gets better:

"Whether a regulator or one of the regulated industry participants, it is important that the regulatory system have the appropriate degree of transparency and hence predictability."

So you've got to be transparent and then you can be predictable. That's what this is saying and that's what the whole purpose of these amendments is: If it's transparent, it'll be predictable.

"The ability of the province to prescribe in the building code criteria for its

interpretation will help to achieve this goal and lead to more uniform application of the building code by municipalities."

As a result of the regulations that are going to be passed by Bill 112 and as a result of rationales such as this, building inspectors and people involved in the housing industry, whether they be builders, whether they be people who are suppliers, whether they be contractors, won't know what in the world's going on. They're going to have to take courses. The municipalities are going to have to send the building code people in the municipalities off to school simply to understand what in the heck they're talking about in these regulations. It's just going to be an unbelievable minefield of confusion.

During the hearings, of course, we were told: "There will be consultation. Continuous consultation will take place throughout time as to what changes in the regulations are going to take place." Of course, the whole reason why we went into public hearings is that someone discovered that farmers were all up in the air because they weren't able to use the ungraded lumber from their bush lots to build their outbuildings.

The government said, "Let's go into public hearings and we'll solve all that." Well, we got to public hearings and the minister had a press release, along with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, and he and she said on July 30: "Farmers who have traditionally used lumber from local bush lots to build farm buildings will be able to resume the practice under changes to the Ontario Building Code." This is the announcement of the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

Then we get to the hearings and wait anxiously for an amendment which is going to come forward in Bill 112. The parliamentary assistant is shaking her head. I'd like to read what she said. "In consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Food, we're clarifying the provision in the building code concerning the use of ungraded lumber." I have yet to see the regulation. This promise has been made. It's as if: "Trust us. We're going to deal with it."

They say they're not going to do it, but we have yet to see the regulation. When are they going to consult with the farmers of this province? When are they going to consult with the opposition parties? When are they going to consult with other people involved in the industry? We don't know, but we do know that the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Agriculture and Food are clarifying it, although they won't tell us exactly when or what that's going to do.

That whole process of consultation gives me great concern, because I understand that there are many regulations that perhaps shouldn't go into the bill. You can't debate every regulation that comes out. But the whole process is flawed. We were assured that this type of regulation would have been dealt with by the regulation under the consultation process. It fell through the cracks in the boards. They somehow missed it. Hence we had public hearings which cost the taxpayers of this province thousands of dollars. We never did debate it. We never yet have seen the regulation. It was simply announced that they're clarifying it.

The process, as I understand it, that came forward at the hearings was that the Ontario Building Code is based on the national building code, and that's revised every five years. The Ontario code is then set up for changes. This has been going on since the 1970s. The Ontario code is then set up for changes on a two-year cycle. Then there are three or five committees which are set up to review the code and develop the proposed regulatory changes. The bureaucracy sinks me. It overwhelms me when I read this stuff, but this is what I learned at these hearings.

Then the proposed changes are consolidated into a brief, booklike document which is distributed to the parties likely to be most affected by the changes: the architectural offices, the engineering offices and the construction association, as well as any party that requests the information. Then the ministry goes out on the road and holds seminars across the province to discuss these changes and ask for citizen and group feedback to the proposed changes. Then the recommendations are put back to the minister.

When all the input has been received, the minister, on the advice and information gathered, then decides on what the changes will be. There's no question that many of the changes are technical and will attract very little media attention, but that seems to be the process. The use of ungraded lumber in farm buildings certainly attracted some attention, and that's why we got into the public hearings of Bill 112. That's why I suppose I asked the question, how did we miss that, and what others are we going to miss?

Hence the flaw of the process of amending the building code, setting up little rules that no one knows about, by regulation. It's now going to consist of volumes and volumes of rules that you're going to need experts to talk to the builders about. They're going to have to have consultants and they're going to have to pay people. They're going to have to pay these consultants to advise them on how to put forward all these things. Meanwhile, it won't be the province of Ontario, although it's creating these things, there's a whole bureaucracy that's creating this massive stuff.

That's going to then go to the building departments around this province. Who pays for that? The answer is, the municipalities. They're the ones that pay for all this.

Again I get back to the whole process of downloading. It's a very serious position when you put forward these policies, you expand the regulations, you make them completely unbearable and the municipalities have to administer them. It puts the municipalities of this province in a very, very difficult situation. The Urban Development Institute also commented on that, which was subsection 34(2). They said the regulations "establishing standards of maintenance, occupancy and repair" of existing buildings as an occupancy code is a good idea.

The problem is that such standards will exist side by side with all the other occupancy standards the municipalities pass under the Planning Act, or in the case of a number of a cities, including Toronto and Ottawa, under special legislation. In other words, we're going to have different sets of rules: We're going to have the municipal rules and then we're going to have the provincial rules. The building inspectors in this province are going to be completely overwhelmed, as will be the builders. It puts us all in a very difficult position.

The most damning comments as to the building code with respect to these regulations came from one of the delegations, the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario. I think it becomes clear that this is the real reason why this package of the building code was changed from Liberal Bill 103, I think it was, to the current Bill 112 of the NDP. It has been changed so that it meets with the elaboration of rent control.

You ask, is that possible? Yes, it's possible. I'll tell you what's happened. Bill 121 and the retroactive Bill 4 set forth that you can only raise your rents by a certain percentage. Bill 112 says that existing buildings must meet certain standards, and they're going to come through regulation, which will be changed from time to time without debate and without the knowledge of the owners of buildings. They won't be able to plan for those changes; they won't be able to set aside reserves.

All of a sudden these regulations are going to appear before us, and the owners won't have the financial resources to meet them. At the same time, they're going to be tied down by the rent control legislation that says you can only raise rents by a certain percentage. The squeeze is on. The squeeze of the ownership of these buildings is on.

There's no question that Bob Rae, the Premier of this province, with his comments before he got elected that he intends to take over the housing industry of this province and make it all public housing, is on schedule. It's another brick that's being laid, this Bill 112, which is going to put the squeeze on the landlords and the owners of the buildings of this province. If the landlords and the owners haven't had a look at this bill, I think they'd better take a long, hard look at it because it's going to have serious repercussions with respect to them.

Fair Rental made some interesting comments, which I'd like to refer to. They state, "As set out in subsection 34(2), these regulation-making powers could apply to any of the 28 areas delineated for new buildings in subsection 34(1), including such matters as standards for plumbing and venting systems or the types of materials which must be used in a building, establishing standards for maintenance and repair and prescribing standards for resource conservation and environmental protection."

Fair Rental talks about three major problems with this proposal, from the perspective of the rental housing sector. Again, as you're listening to this, keep in mind what I believe this government's trying to do. I believe they're planning to put their thumb on private enterprise, the people who own the buildings in this province, and put them out of business; put the squeeze on them and put them out of business. I think we saw it with Bill 4, we saw it with Bill 121 and we're seeing it again with Bill 112 with respect to these regulations.

"First, it duplicates existing standards at the municipal and provincial levels;

"Second, it adds greater uncertainty to the operating environment for rental buildings and risks the implementation of new standards with no public debate; and

"Third, it is being proposed at the worst possible time" -- and I think this is the main issue we should be looking at. The written submission from Fair Rental, which is dated September 3, 1992, goes on -- "as landlords strive to absorb the blows dealt by the retroactive application of Bill 4, the 1990 rent freeze legislation, and the recent proclamation of Bill 121, the Rent Control Act, 1992."

They then go into some of the areas of these regulations which give them specific concerns. The first is duplication, and I've referred somewhat to that. They point out that:

"In more than 430 municipalities in the province, including all those of significant size and covering well over 90% of the rental housing stock, property standards bylaws have been passed pursuant to either the Planning Act or the special legislation for cities like Ottawa and Toronto. Where municipalities do not have their own standard, the provincial minimum standard applies."

Who says that standards in the city of Toronto are going to be the same as those in Thunder Bay, in Windsor, in Niagara Falls, or other areas around this province? Who says we're all the same? Who says that the requirements are going to be all the same throughout the province of Ontario? The municipalities have different bylaws, different rules that are being set forward, and this bill is simply going to create absolute havoc in the building business. The report goes on:

"As an organization" -- this is Fair Rental -- "we have heard no suggestion that these local standards are suffering widespread deficiencies or are in need of replacement." During the hearings, we heard no complaints that what standards we have now around the province are deficient. In other words, none of the municipalities came forward, or none of the residents from municipalities came forward and issued any comment with respect to deficiencies. "In many cases, the municipal standards have higher order requirements than the provincial standard.

The fact that municipal property standards vary to some degree is not unreasonable given the huge differences between regions of the province and the diverse requirements of municipalities which might have 2,000 residents or