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

June 6, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BUSINESS

CORNWALL AREA ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

Mr Cleary moved second reading of Bill 102,

An Act to protect the Economies of the Border Communities of the Cornwall Area.

M. Cleary propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 102,

Loi sur la protection economique des communautes frontières de la region de Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: While requesting exemptions to the proposed tax increases in the 1991 budget for fuels, tobacco and alcohol, this bill is particularly designed to assist the border community of Cornwall.

Merchants in my riding have said that the swarm of across-the-border shoppers has resulted in dwindling sales and job losses. Indeed, as all members are aware, my riding has been particularly hard hit by unemployment.

Frankly, the cross-border shopping frenzy shows no sign of abating. Unprecedented lineups have created traffic jams on the St Lawrence Seaway International Bridge between Cornwall and New York state. It reached such climactic and serious measures that natives on the nearby Akwesasne reserve threatened to blockade the bridge to protect the disruption of their lives.

I believe that shoppers want to support their local economy. People want to shop in Cornwall, Sault Ste Marie, St Catharines, Windsor and all border communities across this province, but first they have to look after their pocketbooks. Of course consumers decide to drive to the United States, where lower prices and lower taxes have become very attractive.

A recent provincial government study showed that retailers in the Cornwall area last year lost $12 million in sales to cross-border shopping. Across the province, this translated into over $500 million in lost revenues. Neither figure includes lost taxes. Increased taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol are the prime attractions for US-bound shoppers and will lead to further increases in cross-border shopping.

In his recent budget, the Treasurer raised the gas tax by 1.7 cents on 29 April and an additional 1.7 cents on 1 January 1992. With the most recent increase half of the price of gasoline is now tax. As a result of the budget, it has been estimated that drivers will pay an extra $36 this year and $73.44 in 1992, based on 20,000 kilometres. On average, a Cornwall motorist pays 56 cents per litre for gasoline compared with 26 cents in the United States.

Cornwall has a problem even bigger than that of other border communities, because it sits near an Indian reserve where there are absolutely no taxes collected. In any case, the cost of Cornwall gasoline is almost 50% more than in the United States.

However, if we look at the cost of just the product itself without taxes, at the price of a litre of gasoline in Canada and the price of a litre of gasoline in Massena, New York, the price of gas before taxes in Canada is 32 cents per litre, compared with 33 cents in the United States. As a result of these differentials, Cornwall retailers are down in volume anywhere from 25% to 50%.

Subsequently, 28 local retailers from our area formed a gasoline and motor vehicle retail association. This group states clearly that the root of the problem is the incredible tax imbalance between the two countries and it feels that tax reduction is necessary. While revenues generated from both the provincial and federal government would decrease per litre of gasoline, a higher volume would be sold, thus offsetting any reduction.

The budget increased the cost of cigarettes. As a note of comparison, a carton of 200 cigarettes costs $40.81 in Ontario and $22.21 in New York state.

The liquor tax: For the recent increases on beer, wine and liquor, a similar comparison may be drawn on the Canadian-American price differential.

Sunday shopping: Many of our retailers in Ontario border communities insist that they must be open to cut their revenue losses and win back shoppers flooding into the United States. For the greater part of the year, there is still an outflux of shoppers crossing the bridge to buy a few goods, filling up the gas tank and stopping for a quick meal while in the United States on any day of the week, all factors which drain our local economy. Local retailers can provide the best customer service, but they will not keep the customers if these are able to get gas and products more cheaply within minutes of Cornwall.

Further, it is not just the consumer going across the border; it is our retailers and our industries. Several factors reflect why the United States may be a more attractive location -- basic economies of scale and geography, lower municipal taxes, lower labour costs, lower overhead costs, tax exemptions and prorated tax agreements and other economic incentives. Canadians must be made aware of the benefits they receive in return for paying higher taxes. But many people do not care or cannot afford to care, given the economic situation.

In fact, after the Cornwall Business Council conducted a study on grocery prices on each side of the Canada-US border, food actually proved to be cheaper in Canada. On a typical food basket, two Cornwall stores came in at $94.41 and $101, while a P&C store in Massena came in at US$93.50, on top of which is the exchange and duty.

I am pleased to report that efforts are being made at the community level to combat the cross-border shopping crisis. I note the publicity campaign to enhance consumer awareness about the consequences of cross-border shopping, in which my riding will participate.

On a more local front, the Cornwall Business Council is busy trying to develop a strategy to deal with cross-border shopping. The first step of the strategy was the Shutter Bug program, which recognizes local merchants who provide super service. In fact, one of my constituents, Bill Willis, has recently been awarded the Loeb Award of Excellence in community involvement.

The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry business futures committee and the South Dundas Economic Development Commission have initiated a study to identify what goods and services are being purchased outside the area. As well, the mayor of Cornwall is currently involved in a cross-border shopping consultation task force.

Municipal, provincial and federal governments must work together to ensure a more competitive economy, while providing the necessary incentives and support to customers and businesses alike. I would like to stress that commercial and industrial failures, or relocation, causes revenue to decrease. In these exceptional times of hardship and recession, communities now need help. I was extremely disappointed to learn of the recent decision to terminate interest-free business incentive loans from the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. As a recent Angus Reid poll indicated, many Canadians favour tougher restrictions to discourage cross-border shopping.

I will leave the balance of my time for a windup because I am very interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say. I know many of them share the same problems.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Cornwall for his private member's motion. He is certainly addressing a very real problem, not only in eastern Ontario but across all border communities, but particularly in eastern Ontario. I am sorry the member was not able to attend our task force last Thursday in Cornwall. I presume he was still here in Toronto. I would have been very interested in hearing what the mayor of Cornwall and a number of business people had to say regarding the major problem of cross-border shopping.

First of all, the main problem is the cost of fuel, and I think the member for Cornwall touched on it. We had several representatives from the fuel industry at the retail and wholesale levels, and the comparisons are like this: In Massena, New York, which is a five-minute drive from Cornwall over the Seaway International Bridge, the price of a 55-litre fuel fill-up is $20. In Cornwall, Ontario, it is $30.

However, on Akwesasne, an Indian reserve which happens to be right between Cornwall and Massena, the Mohawks, known as Akwesasne, are not Canadian, not American, not Quebecois, not Ontarians. They are North Americans and they are not subject to tax. That same tank of fuel on Akwesasne costs $16, so therein is the problem in a nutshell. The difference brings our Ontarians to Akwesasne to fill up. It is very easy to go to the St Lawrence Mall on the outskirts of Massena, New York, and do some shopping at what are perceived to be advantageous prices.

The business community in the city of Cornwall has done a study, and I was very interested in hearing of that study last Thursday by one of the presenters to our task force. They actually did a study on groceries and other commodities, and would you believe, Mr Speaker, that the price is cheaper in Ontario? However, fuel brings them over; an empty tank of gas brings them over. The perception is: "We will save money. We've saved money on gas. There's no doubt about that. And if we stay long enough to be legal, we can take back a bottle of alcohol and a carton of cigarettes."

I have no great sympathy in that area, but fuel is not a sin tax. This government must realize that before the budget came in, the Treasurer said he would not increase the sin taxes. What happened was exactly the opposite: 1.7 cents a litre. Multiply that by 4.5 to find out the increase on a per-gallon basis. Of course, there are cigarettes and alcohol and you name it: $1 billion of added taxes at a time when the economy could ill afford any increases, particularly in the area of fuel, which is the main catalyst that is bringing people from Cornwall, from Ontario, over to New York state.

I will be supporting without hesitation the motion of my colleague the member for Cornwall. However, do members know what he is talking about really? He limits it to his riding. I find that rather sad. I took the time to look at the situation just across the border to the east of us, in the place called Quebec. It has tax zones. I was not aware of that and I made some notes. I would have liked the member for Cornwall to look at this. This makes a little more sense than limiting it to the riding of Cornwall.

Quebec has five tax zones. If you happen to live within five kilometres of the border, the provincial tax is 6.58 cents a litre. If you live in the next zone, five to 10 kilometres from the border, the tax is 8.36 cents a litre. In the third tax zone, which is from 10 to 15 kilometres from the border, the tax is 10.01 cents. When you live beyond 15 kilometres from the border, the tax is 12 cents a litre. That is addressing the reality of the situation.

You are a victim of circumstance if you happen to have a service station close to the Ontario-New York border. Quebec has recognized that by creating tax zones. I would like my colleague the member for Cornwall to think about that, and I would like the government to think about that. Even if members approve my colleague's private member's motion this morning unanimously in this Legislature, I do not think it will become law. I think the government of Ontario has to look at the zone, at least to provide a degree of protection and recognize there is a problem.

Right now, all the government is doing is blaming the federal government at every turn in the road. It is not above reproach, and I will be talking about that as well. However, in the real world of politics here in Ontario over the last five years, in the five most economically buoyant years, the Liberals increased our deficit by $10 billion. They also allowed us to lose the 10% tax advantage that we had as Ontarians over our colleagues and friends in Quebec.

As a matter of fact, at the task force that heard a number of presentations in Ottawa last Thursday morning, we had a tax consultant tell us that if he were advising a new business sitting in the city of Ottawa whether it should set up in Ottawa or in Hull, he would advise it to go to Hull, Quebec for the 5% tax advantage that it now has. That is compared to five years ago, when we in Ontario had a 10% tax advantage. That is what has happened under two socialist governments: the Liberals and the NDP.

Now I get back to the federal government. It is far from being above reproach. It has grabbed everywhere it could, and it was faced with a large deficit, which we in Ontario are presently creating for whoever follows this government. However, I was listening to the CBC this morning and I heard Sir John A. Macdonald speaking. Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday happens to be today. The actor was Robert Welsh from Manotick. He will be travelling to a small community in my riding known as Avonmore this afternoon. I hope to be there. I hope Via Rail is on time to bring me to Avonmore some time between 4 and 6.

Do members know what the now sober Sir John A. Macdonald will be telling the people of Avonmore? "We do not want our post office to close." Avonmore is a small rural community next door to my small rural community. We will be fighting tooth and nail to retain the post office that has been there for 127 years. I will be doing everything within my limited power as an MPP here in this Legislature.

To get back to the problem of cross-border shopping, the community of Cornwall is suffering terribly from the long lineups trying to get back into Ontario with a tankful of gas, maybe four new tires to be exempt from the $5 tire tax and a couple of cartons of cigarettes and a couple of 40-ouncers of alcohol, as well as groceries and clothing. They are lined up at the border, and it is taking an awful lot of time to get through. Be that as it may, they are over there to shop primarily because the price of fuel is so much cheaper. I reiterate, the zoning of locations in Ontario somewhat similar to what Quebec has done is, I think, inevitable. This government must look at it very seriously.

There is the study done by the business community of Cornwall which indicated that groceries and a lot of commodities were cheaper in Ontario as compared to Massena, New York. I am not telling members that it is cheaper compared to anywhere in the United States, but for Cornwall in comparison to Massena, it is proven; we have the study. It is cheaper in Ontario. The exorbitant cost of fuel here in Ontario is bringing them over and they are spending money while they are over there. Gas retailers cannot win. François Guindon made us a presentation and indeed a plea that the community is suffering very dramatically.

I want to touch on another area. MacEwen Fuels happen to be situated in Maxville, which is my home town. I am pretty proud that they are there because they are pretty major employers. But what would happen if the minimum wage in Ontario were increased by 50 cents an hour, not a lot of money? This fuel distributor has 84 sites, and they are open 17 hours a day, seven days a week. Do members know what that would cost this small fuel retailer and wholesaler? Some $5,000 a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks. The NDP government tells us it wants to protect the workers.

They will be protecting unemployed workers, that is who they will be protecting, because no one will be there to employ anyone. It is that simple, and that is not including the added cost of the employer health tax, UI, CPP and all the rest of it; that is just out-of-pocket direct on the paycheque, $5,000 a week.

Second, the 3.4 cents a litre increase -- 1.7 cents the day of the budget, 1.7 cents on 1 January 1992 -- will cost this retailer with 84 outlets $3,060,000 in additional tax. Whenever we say additional tax, that is the 30% that was tacked on by this Treasurer after telling the people of Ontario that he would not increase the so-called sin taxes. That is after trying to tell us that he was going to stimulate the economy.

My colleague the member for Cornwall is absolutely right; the city of Cornwall is dying, and not a slow death any more but a quick death. This government is trying to tell us it is using this large deficit: short-term gain for long-term pain. It used to be the other way around when there was another government prior to 1985 in this province: short-term pain for long-term gain. Now we have short-term gain, crass political gain, for long-term pain that will be paid for by our grandchildren.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Villeneuve: The truth is getting to them, Mr Speaker, and I hope they do not just react in a negative way but take some positive steps.

I see the member for Ottawa Centre here. I think it is a tragedy that she is no longer in cabinet. I think she was doing a good job looking after the interests of eastern Ontario and I know she is probably still doing it from outside the cabinet. However, she has to take the message to the Premier that whenever a tax consultant in Ottawa says, "I would advise my client to go to Hull because of a 5% business tax advantage," there is a clear message there and it is coming from someone who has no political axe to grind. It is pure facts.

In 1985 we had a 10% tax advantage over Quebec. Now we are at a deficit of 5% and falling quickly into the negative.

Mr. Hope: No, that is negative.

Mr Villeneuve: It is absolutely true -- $10 billion this year of deficit, $8.2 billion next year, and by the time their mandate is done, $35 billion additional deficit. I do not know what it is if it is not going further. It is certainly going in the wrong direction. The climate for business is so terrible here in this province. We have not only rumours, but The Bay is talking about moving on. Whenever we have tire companies closing down, a couple of thousand people are out of work. Those are not border communities; those are communities that are not affected by cross-border shopping.

Surely we are in deep trouble in this province. It is the time the government recognized and addressed the problem in a positive way.

In conclusion, I congratulate my colleague the member for Cornwall. He is well meaning. I am afraid his motion may not go far. He certainly has our total support, and we are with him all the way. Create some zones and recognize the problem.

Ms Gigantes: It is my pleasure to be able to add a few words on the subject of Bill 102. It is a modest little bill, though to hear members opposite talk about it, you would think it was going to solve the economic problems of the nation. What we are talking about in Bill 102 is relief for residents of the Cornwall area from taxes that affect liquor, beer, spirits, wine, coolers and gasoline. This is proposed to us as a serious measure to help the Cornwall and area economy.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You had your turn. It is their turn.

Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your help. I am quite used to speaking over the babble across the way.

There is no doubt that wide areas of this province, and I speak particularly of the eastern Ontario area, are suffering desperately during this recession. I want to point out to members opposite that it was this party which first voiced concern about this recession over a year ago when the parties opposite would not recognize there was a recession, when the word was not allowed in the political vocabulary of Ontario except from this party.

Every hairdresser in Cornwall, Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, every taxi driver in Toronto, every gas station attendant in Windsor knew there was a recession in April of last year, but there was no such thing happening as far the parties opposite were concerned.

We have to take this recession very seriously. When it affects, as it has affected, communities such as Cornwall, to the extent that there is a 16% unemployment rate in that community, that is a pain and a suffering for people in that area which this government takes very much to heart. When we came to government in this province -- to our surprise, to the surprise of a great many Ontarians -- we felt a great responsibility to begin to work on behalf of people who from over a year ago had been feeling the effects of the recession, particularly in eastern Ontario.

One of the first things we did was to announce last fall that we would undertake a $700-million anti-recessionary fund and distribute that money to the areas which most needed it for the development of capital infrastructure which would last for years and serve the public of this province and which would provide, has begun providing and is providing work for 20,000 people in this province.

I want to point out that eastern Ontario has not been forgotten as we undertook those initiatives. Cornwall riding received $5.8 million in provincial funding through that measure. Further, the area of S-D-G & East Grenville riding received $11.9 million in funding.

I would like to underline that, while the average per capita allocation around this province -- in other words the amount of money that went out per person in an area -- was about $80, in Cornwall it was over $100, and in the area of S-D-G & East Grenville it was over $200.

There has been clear recognition by this government that there is a problem in eastern Ontario, and a particular problem in the Cornwall and S-D-G & East Grenville area.

We are not going to solve the economic problems of eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, or southwestern Ontario by setting out tax zones and allowing people to buy cheaper liquor or gasoline. That is not going to solve the problem. Those are very temporary, superficial measures.

The problem of cross-border shopping is contributing to the difficulties people are suffering in the economies in affected areas. In Cornwall it is being felt and has been felt for some time. It is urgent now because of the economic situation in Cornwall. What we have to do is tackle the problem of cross-border shopping.

This government, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, has been providing funds to the very groups that have been cited by members opposite who are doing a fight-back campaign in their own communities, on behalf of their own business communities, to help encourage and support those businesses, to help convince people that shopping in the local area is a wise investment, a good social and economic investment. We are putting money into that because we believe it is necessary.

We are also undertaking the first thorough study of cross-border shopping of any government in this country. MITT has been involved in that study now for many months and it will continue that work until its completion in the next few weeks.

When we have the results of that study and can add them to the efforts in the local communities that are so deeply affected, then we are going to be able to come up with policies that perhaps will begin to address the overall problem.

Mr Villeneuve: Are you supporting it, Evelyn?

Ms Gigantes: I am not willing to support a bill that treats this problem as if it is a question of how much money one pays for wine, beer, spirits or coolers in Cornwall. That is not the problem and that is not the solution.

We have to have long-term policies. We need to have regional economic development policies that will deal with the problems of areas such as eastern Ontario, and this government intends to bring those policies forward.

Mrs Fawcett: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak definitely in support of this bill. My colleague the member for Cornwall is a very hardworking member who is doing his utmost to represent the concerns of his constituents by bringing this bill forward today.

The devastating effects of cross-border shopping, not only in his community but right across the province, are really unparalleled in recent memory. The member for Cornwall has relayed to our caucus on several occasions the very real concerns he has for the economic wellbeing of his constituency and how this government's lack of action allows cross-border shopping to continue to erode the economic viability of Cornwall.

Yet there are tools at this government's disposal which could help stop the bleeding. As my colleague has suggested in his bill, an exemption from the proposed new taxes in the government's budget for border municipalities would be an excellent start.

I would also suggest the government may want to offer financial assistance to business groups in these municipalities for marketing and advertising to counteract the advertising being done by our neighbours to the south. We continually see their ads in the local newspapers right along the border. This is something perhaps even the member for Frontenac-Addington might want to pursue at the cabinet table to help address the ill effects of cross-border shopping in his constituency, or the widespread ramifications they are having in his colleague's neighbouring riding of Kingston and The Islands.

I was in conversation with my husband last night, who happens to be down at our farm right now on one of the islands he represents, Howe Island, an absolutely beautiful place. He very often has to go into Gananoque and other places for supplies, and certainly the topic of conversation there is the devastating effects that cross-border shopping is having in that area as well, the numerous businesses that are gone or just hanging on by a thread.

The government could look at the issue of cross-border shopping as an opportunity to finally help small business in Ontario instead of taking its normal route of ignoring or bashing them. Government could work with small business to develop plans to improve its competitiveness, something I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology might want to pursue. I would suggest this government re-establish the parliamentary assistant's committee on small business that worked so well in the past. The first issue that group may want to study would be cross-border shopping.

As has been said, cross-border shopping is slowly draining the economic life out of retail industry in Cornwall. A report prepared by the provincial government estimates that Ontario will lose $1 billion this year alone, and a good portion of that $1 billion will be from eastern Ontario. Will that money ever be found again? My guess is that it will take a very long time for recovery, unless of course we see some very real, concrete assistance from this government, because that $1 billion is lost in jobs, taxation and small business failures as a result of the cross-border shopping. The NDP government has wasted valuable time which could be used to help solve the problem.

I certainly want to commend my colleague for bringing this most important issue to the Legislative Assembly and I urge every member to support him in his efforts to curb the ill effects of cross-border shopping in his constituency. I suggest the government may want to use his fine example as a way to address this issue across the province.

Mr Martin: I am really happy to be able to get up this morning and speak to this resolution. Certainly cross-border shopping is an issue that everybody in this province should be looking at very seriously, particularly those of us who represent communities across the river or land from an American community, or another provincial community for that matter, as we try to maintain and strengthen the economies of the places where we live.

The tack I would like to take this morning in confronting this question is one of trying to put it into some context. The answer to the problem presented this morning by the member opposite could in fact become part of a larger initiative to stem the tide of moneys going across the river in some instances, but I suggest it is certainly not the answer, nor one of the major reasons for the phenomenon happening in the first place. There have always been differentials on varying products over the years as one community competed with another, and what we have today is not that significantly different, as stores and businesses jockey for position in an economy that is always so very competitive.

I would like to suggest today that the cross-border shopping challenge is fundamentally a federal question. It is a question of relationship between two sovereign countries. The attitude the federal government has taken over the last number of years in its attempt to rid us of the borders between us and our neighbours to the south is the major problem we face here, the kinds of things the federal government has tried to foist upon the people of this country under the guise of free trade, the value of the dollar and so many other things that have such a significant impact on our ability to compete across the river.

This is a very complicated and sophisticated problem that is not going to be answered by communities by themselves, businesses in those communities or even the provincial government. There is an answer to this, but it has to be a co-operative answer among all those bodies, particularly leadership by the federal government.

The federal government, in its effort to create what it sees as a level playing field, will stop at nothing to do that. Under attack, in that effort, are all the things we as Canadians hold dear, all the things we value: our social programs, our system of hospitalization, our education system and everything else supported so generously by the taxes of the people who live in this country, who choose to live here because of the things we see as important, the sharing among one another.

If the federal government is allowed to continue the agenda it has set out for itself of bringing us down to a level of service comparable to what the Americans deliver, or to share with one another, then we will all suffer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin: We also have to take into consideration the fact that, as my colleague who spoke earlier from the government side said, the country is in a deep recession. This recession was certainly not caused by our government. We inherited the conditions within which this recession gets even deeper as days go on.

The federal government shares a big part of the responsibility there. Certainly the previous provincial government, with its inability to come up with an industrial strategy that projected into the next century in any significant way, can also take some responsibility for the economic condition we find ourselves in in this province right now, and for some of the fundamental challenges that face communities as they try to come up with new economic plans that speak to health and a sustainable prosperity for them into the next few years and indeed, into the next century.

When you put together a federal agenda which is designed to rid us of any border whatsoever between ourselves and the Americans, so that multinationals can become the government of the day with no concern whatsoever for those things that we as Canadians have come to hold as valuable; when you combine that with the recession which was not in any way anticipated, nor were any preparations made by either the federal or the previous provincial governments, we have in front of us, particularly those of us who represent border communities, a problem of tremendous magnitude that is not going to be solved by simply reducing the taxes on things like gasoline, tobacco and other commodities that produce the revenue we need to pay for the great education system, hospitalization system and other services we have come to expect as Canadians.

Indeed, the suggested remedy here re this bill today, as I said when I started, might be part of a larger answer. I commend the member opposite for bringing it forward and for raising this issue, because certainly none of us who represent border communities can in any way ignore this particular problem as the federal government and the previous provincial governments did. So I suggest to the members that fast-laning, express-laning borders is not the answer. This may indeed be part of the answer, but all of us together, all levels of government have to come together and come up with a bigger response.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise in private members' hour and debate Bill 102, which I believe is a very thoughtful response from my colleague the member for Cornwall.

Private members' hour gives all of us an opportunity to debate issues of the day, releases us in a way to be the member of provincial Parliament from a specific area across this province, to support one another on an individual basis, on a non-partisan basis, when there is a good idea that comes forward.

Frankly, I am a little surprised. I have been in private members' hour over the last few weeks and I have been listening to some of the debates. I know there are a lot of new members in this House who may not realize that this is their opportunity to release the bondage of having to defend the government. They are unfettered in private members' hour to think, to come up with good ideas and to support good ideas that are suggested by other members across the House.

I would say that this is a very good idea. I would point out to all members of the House that the history of cross-border shopping, which is draining the border communities, is not something any of us takes lightly. We know that history is one which has been ongoing for some time, and we also know that now is the time for action and for leadership.

The mayors' task force of which, as my colleague pointed out, the mayor of Cornwall is a member, actually suggested some courses of action that could be taken to alleviate this situation.

I believe the member for Cornwall's proposal in Bill 102 would allow the city of Cornwall, the township of Cornwall and the township of Charlottenburgh to become a pilot for that kind of proposal that was called for by the mayors' task force itself. They called for a graduated tax on gasoline. As critic for Municipal Affairs, I met with that task force. They pointed out to me and to all of us who listened to them in their thoughtful presentation before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that the reason people who live in border communities cross the border on a regular and habitual basis is because of the difference in cost of gas.

I think the member for Cornwall did an excellent job in documenting this. I will quote from his remarks. He said that the Cornwall Business Council conducted a study of grocery products and found in the Cornwall area that groceries were in fact less expensive in Cornwall than they were across the border. He went on to point out that it was the lure of filling up the gas tank.

That is not only true in Cornwall; it is true in Sault Ste Marie, I would say to the member who spoke against this proposal; it is true in the Niagara region; it is true in Windsor; it is true in all of those communities where so many people live within 15 or 20 minutes of cheaper gas across the border. It is the lure of filling up their gas tank once or twice a week that encourages them to cross the border.

My colleague the member for Cornwall pointed out that, as a result of these price differentials in gas tax, the retailers in Cornwall are finding that their volume is down between 25% and 50%. They are trying to help themselves, but the proposal which would alleviate the Cornwall area from the impact of the gas tax imposed by this budget would give us a chance to study that, to see if it works, to see if it has an impact on cross-border shopping.

I urge the members of this Legislature in the government caucus to be open-minded, to consider this, to give this a chance to go to committee, to allow the mayors and people from border communities to come forward and say whether they feel this is an appropriate pilot that could allow us to examine the effects of a lower or graduated gas tax. I think it is an excellent idea and something that is worth considering.

I want to point out to all members of the House, as the member for Cornwall said, that a Cornwall motorist pays on average 56 cents per litre of gasoline compared with 26 cents in the United States. So we can see and understand why even the most thoughtful resident of Cornwall, even the most thoughtful resident of a border community who would understand the implications of cross-border shopping and would want to support his local community, would be tempted to cross the border to fill up with gas. That is the reason the mayors' task force recommended a gas price differential.

I know it has been dismissed by the government, I know it has been dismissed by the Treasurer and by the cabinet, but it does not have to be the end of that discussion. All members of this House have an opportunity through the passage of this bill, by sending it to committee for discussion, to say to the government: "Here is an opportunity to test it out. Here is an opportunity to pilot, to examine, to see if this will work as the mayors say it will."

I suggest to the members of the NDP caucus that this is their opportunity, in private members' hour, to send those kinds of messages back to the government, to ask it to reconsider that which may be a good idea, which it has cast aside because it was told by some people that they did not think it would work. I think this is worthy of working.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: I am very surprised at the interjection of my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre, who is a very experienced member of this Legislature. She knows full well or she should know full well that private members' hour is a real opportunity for private members to speak up, to be advocates on behalf of their own constituency and on behalf of their regions.

Quite honestly, I was quite surprised that a member from eastern Ontario, from a border community, would dismiss out of hand and would engage in the kind of rhetoric and government defence we heard today from the member for Ottawa Centre. She knows that private members' hour can be used for thoughtful and wholesome debate. I was surprised, in fact I was amazed, that she really felt she had to defend and be so defensive. I know it is not simply that members of the NDP caucus feel they have to defend the government, but I was surprised that a member from eastern Ontario would feel she had to do that in private members' hour.

I would point out to all members of this House that in his budget, the Treasurer raised the gas tax by 1.7 cents per litre on 29 April and by an additional 1.7 cents as of 1 January 1992. For the Cornwall area, which is in the far eastern corner of the province, the member for Cornwall's bill would present an ideal opportunity and an ideal community for the government to have a chance to look at a protected area.

By not allowing the new taxes in this budget to apply to the Cornwall area, this government could show it is open-minded. By even allowing this bill to go to committee, we could hear from people in the Cornwall area, and perhaps economists and others from around the province, what impact this might have and whether or not this could be one solution to the cross-border shopping problems we are facing.

I have listened with great care to the debate in this House and I think there is agreement that this is not a simple issue. But what we have seen from the government so far has been failure. The only thing we have seen them do that has been in any way proactive has been to blame. The time for blame has passed. There is no point blaming the federal government. There are things this provincial government can do. They can show leadership.

We have seen no leadership from the Minister of Revenue; we have seen no leadership from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; we have seen no leadership from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and certainly we have seen no leadership from the Treasurer.

We know there is an opportunity now for all members of this House, in support of the member for Cornwall's bill, to examine this, to give the government an opportunity to display some leadership by being open to a good idea from a private member who represents an area that is suffering not only because of the recession and the economic impact in this province, but also because of the lack of leadership of the provincial government and the lack of action of the provincial government in addressing the recession and because of the huge impact of additional taxes at this time in that part of the province.

I would say to members of the House that supporting the member for Cornwall in this initiative would also send an important message not only to all regions of the province but to all members of this House that if they come up with a good idea, their colleagues, free from the partisanship and the rhetoric of defensive government, are open to good ideas in this House.

Mr Cleary: First of all, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the debate and particularly the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who made some fine points on a graduated gas tax. I did have those figures and also the intentions of what they would like to do in New Brunswick, but time is of the essence, and I am pleased that he brought those out.

I would also like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for her remarks. She mentioned 16% unemployment; I think it is probably over 20%, because a number of people are off unemployment now and their family has to be working and they are not drawing any benefits.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Northumberland for her fine remarks and also the member for Sault Ste Marie. I do realize they have problems in his community, and I want to tell him that it is not my intention to look only at the Cornwall area if we can get this bill to committee. I hope we would look at all areas of the province, because I do have letters from them and I share their concerns. I would also like to thank the member for Oriole for her remarks.

I think the only way to solve this problem -- I do agree that tax breaks may not be all the answer, but at least if we get to committee and we can get our municipal, our provincial and our federal counterparts working on this, I think the end result will be very rewarding, because the fact remains that 80% of Ontarians live close to the border. I do hope members will give this bill some consideration when they are voting, and I would appreciate it if they support it. I think if we all work together we can solve this problem.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I simply want to correct the record. Sir John A. Macdonald, a reincarnated Sir John A., is coming to Avonmore this afternoon on the anniversary of his death, not his birthday.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for S-D-G & East Grenville understands that this is not a point of privilege.

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

Mr Jackson moved second reading of Bill 103,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime.

M. Jackson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 103, Loi portant declaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

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

Mr Jackson: At the outset, I would like to thank all members of the Legislature for receiving this bill in the same non-partisan spirit in which it was written and has been tabled in this House.

When faced with the issue of treatment of and care for victims of crime, the major political parties in eight provinces across Canada have put aside their differences to work together to establish victims' rights bills. I hope that members of this assembly will today demonstrate their wish to stand by that nationwide example of statesmanship and concern for the plight of victims of crime in Ontario today.

The need for private member's Bill 103,

An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime, may perhaps be best understood when we compare how our justice system treats victims with how it treats the perpetrators of crime. Our justice system indeed protects the rights of those accused of crime, and properly so. The accused are automatically provided with specific rights which have been entrenched in law, so as to ensure that the basic principles of due process of law are upheld.

But how does our justice system, how does society treat the victim of crime? Where are the provisions entrenched in law that would regularize police and legal procedures with respect to the treatment of victims of crime who, in the aftermath of a criminal act, must often face the sentence of prolonged suffering? Where is the established legal framework that would provide that victims of crime become not only a part of the process of criminal prosecution but also a part of the equally important process of self-rehabilitation?

Let us remember that under the law, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Victims of crime, in their pain and loss, never cease to be innocent, never cease to be the victim, and in this is to be found a great injustice, a sad inversion of what we all fundamentally believe about the difference between right and wrong. There has always been a sort of legal fiction that a crime is against the state. That misses out a very simple point, that a human being is actually being hurt by that crime.

It is this injustice which Bill 103 seeks to address and to alter. Studies show that 60% of all information which results in the conviction of a criminal comes directly from the victim. Our criminal justice system actually works because of the direct participation of victims. Still, depending on the crime against them, between 30% to 90% of victims do not report it to police. As Pat Marshall of the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children indicated to me, surveys show that women who do not report crimes of violence against them frequently cite mistrust of the justice system as their reason for not reporting.

Dr Irvin Waller, professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa, was involved in the design of the United Nations declaration on crime victims. He tells me that victims' rights bills the world over have recognized that declaration and have instituted practical changes which both recognize and appreciate the victim as the driving force of justice.

I might add that Professor Waller has also worked on victims' rights bills for France and Australia and Canada's first bill in Manitoba. I would like to say that Professor Waller has strongly influenced some of the elements of this bill, and it has been in the hands of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the past three years, since I first drafted it. They have had an opportunity to study this bill at first hand.

When I presented this bill in February 1989 and then subsequently on 5 April 1990, unfortunately the bill was supported in the House but blocked from going to the standing committee on administration of justice. It is my fervent hope that such a fate will not befall this bill again this year and that in fact it will be allowed to go to the justice committee.

We must also acknowledge that there are outstanding programs that are available in this province which deal with the issue of victims' rights and compensation. I am sure the government members will be enunciating many of those programs, but the point is that those programs are not available to all victims in all jurisdictions, whether it is an example such as the London family violence program, which is an excellent program but not available in all communities. In my jurisdiction of Halton there is an outstanding victim services program, again not available everywhere.

Our Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is an outstanding program, yet only one in 55 eligible victims in Ontario ever applies for compensation, let alone receives it.

Crown attorneys view illegal acts as crimes against society and not necessarily against the individual victim. This view, however, can blind one to the sight of the faces of victims, who are left in situations of prolonged suffering, of continued victimization, and with less assistance and support than criminals are afforded at taxpayers' expense.

Let us consider for a moment that more than 250,000 Ontario citizens will be victims of crime this year. Every day in the newspapers we read about these victims. In the media, they are portrayed as the wronged, as the key players in courtroom drama, and so often become unwilling celebrities in cases which publicize widely their private suffering. Victims, however, are not accorded the same play in the legal system, in the court proceedings.

This bill which we have before us today would be a corrective to that situation in our province. Bill 103 would require that victims receive information about the cases they are involved with, including the dates established for bail hearings for their assailants, including when and how the present victim impact statement would work.

I was informed of another case involving a family in which three children were victims of incest. They were sexually assaulted by their father over a period of six years. As adults, they decided to press charges against their father. When they went and presented themselves at the police station, they were directed to simply sit down in front of a typewriter and type out their statement. Never were they informed that this would be the basis on which the case would be heard in court.

At no point were they advised that they could seek a lawyer for clarification, and it was no surprise that the outcome of that case is that the father was given a suspended sentence of three years of community service in a children's playground.

These examples demonstrate why victims feel that they are the ones who are put on trial. Really they are victims twice over, for in addition to being victims of a violent act, they become the victims of a justice system which sometimes appears to apply to them the reverse of the legal procedures reserved for the accused.

In 1988, amendments to the Criminal Code under Bill C-89 helped to accomplish a form of compensation which was channelled from the federal government through to each of the provinces. That bill dealt with victims' surcharges against convicted criminals. These funds are sent to this province for the express purpose of having them applied to improve victims' services, and that is where some of the money would definitely come from in order to pay for the enhancement of victims' rights in this province.

This bill would also put into law the right of a victim to be provided with ongoing information regarding his case. Victims should have the legal right to be informed by the police of the progress of the investigations related to their case and of charges laid in connection with them. In addition, victims should be routinely informed by police of the protection available to them to prevent unlawful intimidation.

It would also establish the right of victims to make representation to the prosecuting crown attorney before plea bargaining, sentencing or interim releases are considered for their assailants. Among other provisions, the bill would ensure that victims are informed whenever their assailants leave or have escaped custody. Under this bill, and upon request, victims of sexual assault would have the right to be interviewed by a police officer of the same gender.

In terms of compensation to victims, this bill would make offenders directly liable for damages to their victims as plaintiffs in a civil action, including those undertaken for emotional distress and bodily harm. Most significantly, this bill would provide a presumption that victims of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault and spousal abuse have suffered emotional distress, thus eliminating the requirement on the part of victims to prove this obvious fact before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or before a civil court.

Victims of crime in Ontario deserve the best care and support our society can offer. Victims then deserve more than what currently is provided for them under Ontario law. Let us not inflict on them a further injustice by allowing this bill to become a victim of politics itself. Therefore, on behalf of the victims of crime, I ask all members of the House to join with me in passing Bill 103, a bill of rights for victims of crime in Ontario, and referring it to the standing committee on administration of justice of this House.

Mr Wessenger: I would like speak in support of the principle of this bill. I think it is a matter which all members of the House are concerned about and all members of the House support in providing additional services and protection for victims. However, I would like to add a few comments with respect to some of the details and difficulties I see with respect to the specifics of the bill.

First, with respect to the whole question of the statement of principles in

section 2, there is some ambiguity with respect to the bill as to whether these principles are to be binding or whether they are guidelines only, because of the use of the word "should." I am not certain how that ambiguity is to be construed by the mover of the bill. If it is a matter of "should," then of course it may raise expectations for victims which cannot be met.

If it is a question of being a matter of law that the principles must be followed, first, there would be significant financial implications for the ministry to meet all such standards and, second, there are some cases where the investigation and/or the prosecution would be jeopardized if there was compliance with a particular standard.

The Attorney General has policy directives to crown attorneys and the Solicitor General and municipal police forces have directives to police officers which are already addressing many of the principles contained in the bill, so I would say that in most cases the standards are now being met by policy directives.

Second, with respect to

section 2, paragraph 5, I would suggest that the crown attorney is in effect meeting this objective. The crown attorney system provides special training programs on wife assault, child assault and sexual assault, in addition to regular, wide-ranging training on legal issues. We have the victim/witness assistance program, located in 12 locations in Ontario, which is funded through the Attorney General by the Ontario women's directorate, and the crown attorney's system itself provides three types of designated special prosecution co-ordinators in each office in the province.

For victims of sexual assault, child abuse and wife assault, specially trained prosecutors serve as a source for prosecution staff in each office, providing additional information on the unique difficulties faced by these kinds of victims, in order that the prosecutor assigned to the case has an enhanced understanding of the complexities of these kinds of cases.

Section 2, paragraph 6, provides, with respect to consultation with the victim, that the victim should have an opportunity to make representation to the prosecutor before final arrangements are made with respect to a plea. Currently, information to victims and discussion with victims during plea negotiations is provided in many cases.

Section 2, paragraph 7, requires that victims be given an opportunity to make representations to the prosecuting crown attorney. I would point out that victim impact statements are used in many cases across the province, and affected ministries are currently preparing to reach a final agreement on a province-wide system of impact statement programs, in accordance with the provisions contained in Bill C-89.

There are some aspects of the bill that I find quite interesting, and I might point them out since they were not mentioned.

Section 3 and

section 5 of the bill provide for damages for emotional distress in the case of a victim of an assault, if the victim is or was a spouse of the assailant, a victim of sexual assault and a victim of an attempted sexual assault, and

section 5 of the bill provides that proof of conviction shall be taken as conclusive evidence in the case of civil actions. I think these certainly are matters which are good points, and I commend the member for raising them for future action.

In

summary, the bill's statement of principles is a good statement of principles, but it may give rise to expectations that cannot be reasonably carried out, despite good intentions, and it might be unfair to victims to promise and/or guarantee services or remedies that cannot be honoured.

The bill, as I indicated earlier, covers information and procedures that crown attorneys observe in many respects. Further improvements could be made in expanded guidelines for crown attorneys.

With respect to sections 2, 6 and 7, these sections are not practical in every case, given the daily flow of cases through the courts of Ontario, particularly in large urban areas, and the bill also blurs the role of the crown attorney. The crown attorney is not the lawyer for the victim, nor is he or she the lawyer for the police. The crown is an independent assessor of the facts and all interests in making an independent decision.

As indicated earlier, I like the proposed changes with respect to changing the civil remedies. My minister does support the principles of Bill 103, but does not support special legislation, especially when it does not change the current state of remedies for victims.

Mr Curling: I first would like to commend the member for Burlington South for his persistence and --

Mr Sorbara: One of the best members.

Mr Curling: Yes, one of the better members of the Conservative Party. But I would just be very short on that, because many members of my party feel very compassionate about this bill, and we of course hope that the government side, over on the other side, supports this wholeheartedly.

Society, as members know, is judged by the manner in which it treats the most vulnerable and the most disfranchised. As elected members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to make sure that all human beings are protected and are treated fairly.

As one of my colleagues pointed out to me, the Criminal Code always seems to be there to punish the offender, and somehow there is no sympathy there for the victim. I think it is about time that we focus ourselves and our attention on some of the abuse and the psychological situation that the victim goes through.

The point I would like to make is that there should be some consistency in this bill across Canada. Although of course we approach it here in the province, we should know that the House of Commons is debating this very actively. But we could set an example here by passing this bill. It would be unfortunate if someone being abused in the province, the victim, would be treated better here than elsewhere, whether it is in Quebec or British Columbia, so there should be a national consistency about how we treat victims of crime.

One of the points that grabbed my attention very much in the member's bill was the victim's right to be informed whether his or her assailant has applied for parole or day passes, been granted bail or escaped lawful custody. It is important. We know the fear that goes through one's mind that an individual is being released, whether or not that individual will be around, and how one should protect oneself. I think it should do that so the caution and the psychological accommodation that is needed can be done.

The right for sexual assault victims to be interviewed by an officer of the same gender: I think there is some -- I am trying to find another word -- comfort zone, a way for one to speak easily and openly about the affair and about what he or she feels could be done. I think it would be very helpful to the system.

I want to strongly support the member's bill and I hope that the members on the other side see it that way, although I heard the other member pointing out where certain things have been taken into consideration already under the Criminal Code. I know they are acting in that direction, but there is no bill that is perfect and I think this one brings it to the point if we examine all aspects of the bill and protect the victims in this situation.

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments about Bill 103. This bill is long overdue. The statistics show us that 250,000 Ontarians suffer loss, injury and emotional trauma every year as a result of being victims of crime. The victims have essentially been left unprotected by legislation. They are only protected by the good intentions of those who work in the fields of law enforcement and court prosecution. A victim today receives by way of obligation no explanation of court proceedings. A victim receives no explanation regarding compensation for victims of crime. A victim has no rights to privacy and protection and his right to reparation is ignored.

Police officers, health professionals, lawyers, crown prosecutors and judges need legislative guidance to ensure help to victims of crime. Legislation for this particular protection exists in every major jurisdiction in North America except Ontario. I point out that the better prepared a victim of crime is in terms of understanding the court procedures, in terms of being protected by the system while he goes through the court procedures, the higher the rate of success of the criminal justice system to deal with the prosecution of people charged with serious criminal offences.

I have taken a look at Hansard from 5 April 1990. The member for Welland-Thorold spoke at length about the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, and it is interesting, because his experience in private life was that of a criminal defence lawyer. His job was to try to protect and defend those charged with criminal offences. Here is what he had to say about this particular subject:

"It is important that victims of crime can know that they are not going to be subjected to the whim of an institution as to whether or not they are involved in the process; that indeed they have a right to be involved in that process.

"It is important for victims to know and understand that it is not a matter of being extended a mere courtesy when they are regarded in a particular light, but it is a matter of having a right to be regarded in that particular way."

What the member quite correctly was saying was that police do what they can to ensure protection for victims of crime, but there is nothing mandating them to do that. Judges as well bend over backwards to be sensitive to victims of crime, to listen to impact statements, to listen to what victims say about sentencing and to listen to what victims' positions would be in the case of interim release, but there is no legislative obligation to do that. It is a common courtesy which sometimes, in an overburdened system, is lost.

Crown attorneys face the same difficulties. They try to be sensitive when dealing with victims regarding sentencing, interim release, or even the plea bargaining aspect of the criminal system, but there is no legislative obligation, and, again, in a system that is overburdened, it is sometimes difficult for them to act in the way victims would expect the justice system to act related to the plight that they find themselves in.

I heard the comments of the member for Simcoe Centre, and of course this act is not perfect, it can be improved, and I would hope that the members of this Legislature will refer this to the standing committee on administration of justice to make those improvements, but to make this law now, rather than wait any longer.

The bill certainly sets out the general principle that I think no one here would take issue with. Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy.

The bill also sets out the obligations of the various parties involved in the justice system. It says that victims should have access to social services, health care and medical treatment, counselling and legal assistance responsive to their needs. It sets out the duties of the police. Victims should be informed at the time of the investigation of the crime by the police of the services and remedies available to victims of crime and the provisions of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and victims should be informed by police of their investigations and of the charges laid.

Victims should be informed of the role of the prosecutor and the victim's role in the prosecution, the court procedures that will relate to that prosecution, the dates that all of these various procedures will be occurring on, and the outcome of the various procedures should be explained to the victim.

The Askov case has caused considerable difficulty to the justice system in this province and we have heard in debates in this Legislature what some of those difficulties have been. Chief Justice Dubin, in his recent court decision on the appeal of the Askov matters, stated that the Askov case has done more to undermine the public's confidence in the justice system than anything that has occurred. It is therefore incumbent upon this Legislature to try and restore some of the confidence that has been lost because victims have seen cases being tossed out of court and they do not understand why.

This particular bill can help re-establish the public's confidence in the justice system. Victims will know that they are being protected, that there is an obligation to protect them and that they will at least understand how the justice system works. I urge everyone in this chamber to consider the provisions of this bill. I acknowledge that the provisions may not be perfect, but we can send this bill to the justice committee, we can fine-tune it and we can have a piece of legislation that will bring back confidence to the public's perception of the justice system, and I think we can have a bill we will all be proud of.

Mr Winninger: I rise in support of this Bill 103 in principle, and I am just sorry that when this matter came before the justice committee last February and the Attorney General and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were hearing submissions from witnesses at the same time in regard to compensation for victims of crime, the member for Burlington South had not called quorum on that day so that the merits of that particular bill could have been considered earlier by the justice committee.

Certainly the member for Burlington South's bill complements several important initiatives that have already been taken. The victim impact statements have been mentioned, which assist a judge in determining an appropriate sentence or disposition for a convicted suspect; the surcharge which is imposed to help fund the witness assistance program; the prompt return of stolen property, so that a photograph can now take the place of an item of stolen property.

There is the rape shield law, which has caused a lot of controversy but allows a victim of a sexual assault not to be subjected to demeaning cross-examination by defence attorneys; the child screen law, which allows children to testify behind a screen or by videotaped evidence, and finally, a limited form of restitution that is offered under the Criminal Code.

In Ontario, many initiatives have certainly been taken at the administrative level. Information is provided to victims of crime where violence, death, financial loss or personal safety is concerned. Same-gender interviews are encouraged so that a victim of a sexual assault can talk to a member of the same sex about it. Special training, as has been mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre, has been initiated for crown attorneys in wife, child and sexual assault cases. The victim witness program exists in several centres across the province to encourage intensive emotional support for victims of crime.

Information on the court system and liaison services is available to severely traumatized victims of crime. There is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As been mentioned already, in London, the child witness projects provide emotional support for children, counselling, desensitization to the court system and information regarding the court system. In London, we are also pleased to have the police family consultants, who are police officers specially trained in domestic violence so that they can deal with victims in a sensitive fashion.

I have no problem with enshrining a so-called bill of rights for victims, as other provinces have done. I do, however, have some reservations. First of all, in regard to the provisions to seek civil damages and what is called a statutory presumption that sexual and spousal abuse gives rise to emotional distress, these create some problems in that a civil action may prejudice a criminal action or a criminal action can prejudice a civil action. We have to look at the interaction of the civil and criminal procedures very carefully indeed. Also, we do not want to see the criminal process used to collect a civil debt.

Further, we do not want two different rules of evidence to apply in a civil case and in a criminal case in regard to the emotional trauma and the damages claimed for emotional distress in a criminal and also in a civil context.

While the views of victims are routinely solicited in matters of plea bargaining and sentencing, and especially where safety is concerned, problems can arise. The Askov decision has been mentioned, and there may be many circumstances where the victims of crime cannot be readily found. We would be loath to see any delay in the trials due to that. Furthermore, the crown attorney is not just a lawyer for the victim of crime; the crown attorney is acting in the public interest, and the victim's view is a very important factor in the interim release and sentencing, but certainly cannot be a decisive one.

As been mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre, certainly there are no new sanctions in this bill to protect victims' rights. It is a declaration of principles. Perhaps the member for Burlington South should be looking at sanctions that might be imposed to ensure that victims of crime are protected.

These standards of conduct are certainly laudatory and perhaps represent the optimum standard for crown attorneys as they currently act them out. I certainly support strongly the fair treatment of victims and witnesses laid out in this act. We may have to seek some alternatives in the way the criminal justice system is at present responding to victims' rights. We have to ensure that the pendulum does not swing too far back the other way, so that criminal suspects who are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty are not prejudiced by the manner in which we protect our victims of crime. There is a fine balance, and I hope we can find that.

Mrs Fawcett: I would like also to commend the member for Burlington South for the work he has done in the last two years to bring attention to the plight of the many victims of crime.

His bill before the House this morning, Bill 103, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, would enable the government to enforce the statement of the bill's principles and make it easier for victims to bring charges against their assailants.

While we know that crime has no bounds, knows no bounds and can happen to anyone at any age, as the critic for women's issues, I feel it important to make a few remarks this morning because women, we know, can be particularly vulnerable when it comes to crime.

Certainly, there is no doubt that much time and attention and many dollars must be spent to deal effectively with the perpetrators of the various crimes, and I certainly have no quarrel with that. But what really is being done for the helpless victims who are very often women and children?

The horrible fear, trauma and devastating physical harm all victims go through surely deserves the serious attention of all here. This bill gives rights to all victims so they can be sure of assistance in putting these horrible experiences behind them and getting on with their lives.

The bill sets out certain principles that are to apply to the treatment of victims of crime. It also creates certain protections to apply to victims of crime when they are plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against criminals, and it recognizes criminal convictions in the civil actions. All of this we know is definitely needed. We want to prevent victims, if at all possible, from being treated perfunctorily or even abused or manipulated by the criminal justice system. It is sad that we have to even think in these terms, but we know of instances where this is definitely so.

It is the policy position of our party that we definitely support in theory the terms of this bill, and certainly we want to see some concrete actions. In fact, there have been references to the victim/witness assistance program, which effectively carries out the same functions as maybe the first part of Bill 103. This was the program established by the Ministry of the Attorney General in 1986 on a pilot project basis. Certainly the program does allow the ministry to take an active role in preventing the double victimization of victims and witnesses, thereby improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice process, as these persons would now be willing to co-operate in the process.

It also has the effect of improving the public perception of the criminal justice system, and I think Bill 103 then takes that one step farther. We certainly want to see fundamental steps taken to place trained individuals into the process with a specific role of addressing the needs of victims and witnesses.

The service provision was to have been expanded in 1991 to give more specialized and intensive services to groups such as children, the elderly, immigrant and sexual assault victims, who all need our definite support.

The expansion was to be taken in response to the increasing demand for the provision of victims' services expressed by victims' groups, the judiciary, the police and the crown attorneys, who all support these kinds of actions. Certainly, we would want to see the police mandated to inform victims of their rights. So often they are the forgotten element in the crime, which this bill does address.

Right now, these pilot projects certainly need to be expanded province-wide so that all victims across this province can know they are being treated fairly and in a safe manner.

I think this bill takes great strides by allowing victims to inform the courts of their emotional, psychological or physical suffering, which can allow them to contribute to the sentencing and early release eligibility of the accused, alleviating to some extent that sense of exclusion and bewilderment they so often feel. Such initiatives may be a stepping stone to the wider acceptance of victims as an integral part of the criminal justice process. As I said, it is easy to forget the victim in all of this because, naturally, so much effort must be put forward in dealing with the criminal.

I think we know that legislation alone is not enough. What is most important is that there be an improved awareness program to ensure that victims of crime are aware of their legal rights and other recourses that are open to them. Urgently, right now, we need that public awareness. Primarily, I think we want to see widespread acceptance of the victims as an integral part of the process, as well as greater public awareness of the various recourses available to them.

Again, I am pleased to see this bill being brought forward and I know all of us in this party are happy to support it.

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and add to the debate here this morning. Like the other people, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Burlington South for bringing forth this bill and allowing us to debate it. I think it is a worthwhile bill. I was very pleased by some of the elements of this bill.

Some of the things, of course, that have been talked about are things like sexual assault victims' rights to be interviewed by an officer of the same gender. I was fortunate enough last week, during Police Week, to spend time in Metro Toronto with the squad that handles sexual assaults. I had an opportunity to go into the room and I actually participated. They gave me questions, just as they would one of the victims, to see exactly what it was like. I was very pleased to see the fine work that is being done out there. But this is not happening in all jurisdictions, and I think it should. As part of this legislation, I think things like that would be happening.

I believe one of the key elements also will be the victim's right to consult with police and crown attorneys about proceedings and to present a victim impact statement. All too often in our justice system, the victim is the individual who gets left out. Unfortunately, that is the case, and this bill would go a long way towards eliminating that.

It is my hope that as a result of this, the standing committee on administration of justice -- and I see some of my friends from the other side are here from that committee -- will get a chance to go into detail with this bill. I hope that what happens all too often in this House, that when good legislation is tabled it dies on the order paper, will not happen. I would like a chance to take a hard look at what is going on and to hear the fine testimony that would be out there, because there is a long line of people who would like to come forward and explain their particular positions on this.

I think what we are talking about in the basic principles of this bill is really that the victim should be treated with the courtesy, compassion, dignity and privacy that should be there. All too often, because of the way our criminal justice system operates right now, the victim gets left out. This bill would ensure that does not happen. Victims should receive formal, prompt and fair redress for the harm they have suffered.

In some of my other activities, I have gone out with the police. I have said that when a person is robbed, for example, and the police arrive on the scene, they find that sometimes the robbery is the most traumatic thing that has ever happened to that individual. In my area of Halton, we have two officers who go out and work with victims, and I think that needs to happen right across the province.

I think this is a good bill. I will be supporting it. Hopefully, the government opposite will allow it to go to the justice committee, where we can get into fine detail and put in some fine testimony from the people who would like to come forward. It is a bill that is long overdue. Let's move ahead; let's got on with it. I believe this is a fine piece of legislation, so I will be supporting it.

I would like to leave a couple of minutes for my colleague the member for Waterloo North to speak as well on this.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise this morning and speak to Bill 103 from the member for Burlington South. He has put an awful lot of effort and time into this.

I would like to say that no one is more sensitive to the issues of the victims of crime than this government. I would like to take an opportunity to read some of the things this government is doing to aid victims of crime.

The Police Services Act embodies the importance of respect for victims of crime and an understanding of their needs in a declaration of principles. As part of the Ontario sexual assault prevention program, the government has given core funding to 21 rape crisis sexual assault centres and the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, and it has been increased to over $2.5 million.

There has been new funding for 10 new centres at a price of $425,000; new funding for crisis counselling at $1.7 million; diverse community outreach funding at $670,00; enhanced regional services to rural communities of $553,000; assistance for program administration at $651,800; data management at $120,00; interdisciplinary and discipline-specific police training on issues related to sexual assaults at $110,000.

On 28 February 1991 in this House, the Solicitor General announced that $4.2 million of the $700-million anti-recession package will go towards victims' assistance. The program areas included a wife assault education program, organizational support for sexual assault centres, victim services support and northern Ontario and native community outreach services.

Police/community victim assistance services, such as the victim crisis assistance referral service, provide victims with short-term emotional and practical support and with referrals to needed services. Regional consultative services regarding community-based victim services are being added. The total cost of that is $629,500. I am proud to stand here this morning in my place and speak to the wonderful efforts this government has taken, is undertaking and will continue to undertake in furthering the unfortunate victims of violence and crime.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the member for Burlington South. The bill's general direction conforms to existing ministry and government commitments to the victims of crime, and the stated principles reflect current legislation, current programs and current policies.

Mrs Caplan: I would like to start by thanking the member for Durham East for the very clear listing of initiatives of the government, most of which were started and begun over the last five years by the previous government. What it shows is that in fact these issues are not partisan issues.

I want to reiterate, as I speak in support of the principle of this bill, the fact that private members' hour, as I said when I was speaking to an earlier piece of legislation, is an opportunity for members of the Legislature individually to think. This is not the time when they have to come and defend the government. This is not the time when they are bound by caucus discipline. This is the time when, if there is a good idea brought forward by a member of the Legislature, they have the opportunity to think about it, speak about it, vote on it in principle, send it to committee, explore it.

Our rights as individual members are to represent our constituents, to act and speak about the public interest, to act in the best interests of the people of Ontario. Today members have seen an example of two bills, one by my colleague the member for Cornwall, a very good suggestion that would give us an opportunity to explore what would happen if we encourage the government to implement a graduated gas tax in the Cornwall area by exempting it from the budget initiative. Here my colleague the member for Burlington South has brought forward again a proposal for victims' rights legislation. Ontario is the only province in Canada without that legislation.

Today's approval in principle would allow this bill to go to committee for further discussion, for further exploration, for refinement, and I will say very clearly that I believe the piece of legislation we see before us today needs significant improvement, but in principle I support it. I think it is a good idea. I think having a chance to discuss this and debate it at committee would be in the public interest of my constituents in the riding of Oriole and in the public interest of the people of Ontario.

I would urge all members of this Legislature, especially during private members' hour, when we can free ourselves from the partisanship of our caucus discipline, to think about the proposals that are coming forward and not just feel that they have to defend the government record --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Whether it is the record, I say to the member for Durham East, of the previous government or the government before that or the present government today, they should not feel they have to defend to the death the promises their party made during the election, which nobody else in their caucus is feeling the need to defend.

The members opposite have the opportunity as members of this Legislature to stand up and support good ideas when they come from any member of this House. I have been really disappointed in the last few days during private members' hour that members have not done that, that the members of the government caucus seem to take the opportunity in private members' hour to defend the government. It is not necessary to do that during private members' hour.

This is a good idea that the member for Burlington South has brought forward for debate in this House. This is the kind of initiative that members during private members' hour can put forward for thoughtful debate. My colleagues have put on the record, I think, some very sound statistics and data and initiatives and programs that could be helpful, and I would hope that as private members, the members opposite would give this their consideration, their thoughtfulness and their support.

I would hope we will see improvements over the course of the next few months and years as we work together in this Legislature in the kind of attitudes -- I see members opposite laughing. This is not funny. These are serious issues of debate. I see the member for Ottawa Centre laughing about this. She cares about victims' rights, or she should care about victims' rights. I thought she cared about victims' rights and here she is today laughing during a debate in private members' hour rather than seeing this as an opportunity to deal with a difficult and important issue.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 103, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, 1991. I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Burlington South, who has been committed to the principle of a victims' bill of rights since before 1989. I also want to express my appreciation to him for the tremendous consultation that has taken place. There has been consultation and changes made to this bill. He has consulted with victims' organizations, women's groups and members of the legal community throughout Canada and Ontario.

We have before us today a bill that for the first time in Ontario's history would entrench the rights of victims of crime into the province's justice system. This is a very important bill for women in this province, and as the critic for women's issues for my party, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to support this bill. It is especially important for those women across the province who have suffered from sexual assault and spousal abuse. Unfortunately, their numbers are far too many.

We need to make the justice system in this province much more responsive to their immediate and ongoing needs, and in talking to these women in my own community and across the province, this is not happening at the present time. They do not have the assistance and the support that is so desperately needed at a time of crisis. Women throughout this province deserve our support. We should support today Bill 103. We cannot turn our backs on those women who suffer daily from sexual assault and spousal abuse.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank all members who participated in today's debate on Bill 103. I would like particularly to thank those members who have been here before and seen this bill on two previous occasions tabled in the House. Many of them are frustrated that the entrenchment in law of its principles has not become a reality in this province.

I am reminded that when the New Democratic Party was in opposition, the then Attorney General critic, the member for Welland-Thorold, referring to my bill: said" "We applaud this legislation. It is long overdue. It is important that it be pursued diligently by the government." That is to say, that it not be set aside and put on the back burner and be the subject of delay.

I am pleased to advise the House that when I talked to the new Attorney General for the government he said he would support it going to the standing committee on administration of justice. I am now advised by several members of the NDP caucus that they have been instructed to vote against that.

I am quite disturbed and concerned that victims across this province are going to see yet another delay in the entrenchment of rights for victims in this province. The last province in this country to have a government working on this bill is this province of Ontario, with 10 million people.

I can only say that for all those victims who have approached me to share with me their own personal pain and to allow me to understand what they are going through, to allow me to bring forward this bill, I am hopeful that in their name the members of this House will set aside their partisanship and will think about their constituents and consider bringing forward this kind of legislation, which is long overdue. Their cries for justice and compassion should be heard by all members of this House. I ask all members to bring in a victims' bill of rights for Ontario and have this referred to the justice committee of this House so it can become a reality this fall.

CORNWALL AREA ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

The House divided on Mr Cleary's motion for second reading of Bill 102, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Cleary pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 102, mise aux voix, est rejetee :

Ayes/Pour -- 21

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cordiano, Cunningham, Daigeler, Fawcett, Harnick, Jordan, McClelland, McLean, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Witmer.

Nays/Contre -- 34

Abel, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Silipo, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wood.

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 103.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Mr Speaker, the majority is not in favour of it going to the standing committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could Hansard record that it was all NDP members who stood against referring this to the standing committee on administration of justice?

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the third party asked for it to be on the record that the NDP is against victims of violence.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will not entertain any more points of order. Thursday mornings are normally nice and quiet. Let's keep it this way.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Callahan: On 9 August 1990 the member for York South, now the Premier, visited a small community in my riding called Huttonville to rail against the Liberal government about the lack of capital education funding allocated in my riding to address the problem of portables at Huttonville Public School. Indeed, the headline in the Toronto Star over the account of his visit was, "Liberals Shortchanging School System."

The member informed the public that the Peel Board of Education is the largest board in Canada. He is quite right: It is 93,000 strong and 18,000 of these children are in portables. The figures are even higher this year, but the member for York South said that although Peel asked for $81 million for new schools and additions, it received approval for only $31 million. It seems as though the Premier, on his way to Huttonville and to the premiership, is not honouring the promises he made there.

While we are at it, I wonder how the students and teachers at Cardinal Leger High School, the first Catholic high school in Brampton, feel about the Premier's promises. Although they were ranked number two on the priority list of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Minister of Education, in her usual way, interfered with the autonomy of our local Catholic board, knocked Cardinal Leger out of the funding and replaced it with a school lower down on the list.

The ministry is becoming more centralized and heavy-handed, and as we have seen with Dufferin-Peel and in Windsor, she is not beyond intervening and setting local board priorities rather than leaving it to the elected officials to do so.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Arnott: The subject I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature today pertains to the urgent need for traffic signal lights at the intersection of Highway 9 and Allan Road in the village of Clifford. I first raised this issue with the Minister of Transportation in a letter dated 10 October 1990, in which I expressed my profound concern about the safety of this intersection.

At my first meeting with the minister on 23 October 1990 I raised the matter again, expressing my concern. This was followed up by another letter to the minister on 24 January 1991. In response, in a letter dated 11 April addressed to the village of Clifford, some three months later, the minister indicated he would not provide a special subsidy for these traffic lights.

Highway 9 is a connecting link highway in a major route for provincial traffic travelling to the cottage country and the Bruce Peninsula. It cuts the village of Clifford in half. During the summer months the volume of traffic using Highway 9 increases dramatically, and as a result local residents of the village are sometimes forced to wait up to 20 minutes to get across the main street of their own home town.

To illustrate the frustration and inconvenience this causes to local residents, I would like to quote from a letter I received from a five-year-old girl, Megan Douglas, who wrote about the weekend traffic situation:

"Last Saturday afternoon me and Matt were trying to cross the road. Cars were coming. We waited for a long time. So we had to turn around and go home. I was mad cause I wanted to see my mom who was working at the municipal office. The dog was with us."

Some day a child like Megan is not going to turn around and go home, but will attempt to beat the traffic, very possibly with tragic results. Those who have dragged their feet on this issue will be responsible.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Ms M. Ward: Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting the Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre in North York. Today I would like to pay tribute to the management and staff of the centre for their excellent work and innovation. The centre serves Ontario children and young adults who have physical disabilities.

I was particularly impressed by the augmentive communication services. A charming young man of age five told us a story using Blissymbolics. Microcomputers are also used extensively as a communication and learning tool for the disabled.

The centre has a shop which builds wheelchairs and other mobility devices tailored to the needs of the clients. The staff explained how important proper seating is, since the chair becomes an extension of the person.

The centre also designs and builds artificial limbs and orthotic brace devices. One client, who was there for a final testing of an artificial hand, to be mounted on his wheelchair, demonstrated to us how he would operate this using movements of his forehead.

It was by coincidence that my visit followed the announcement by the Minister of Citizenship of $400-million funding to improve services for young people with speaking and writing disabilities. The Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre is one of 15 centres to receive this new funding. The centre is doing excellent work to improve the lives of the disabled and increase their independence. This is proof that the funds are well spent.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: It is becoming increasingly clear that this government does not intend to deal seriously with the problems at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is now obvious that this government has no plan to get the commission back on track so that victims of discriminatory practices will have reasonable access to a fair hearing and redress.

It is also evident that the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission has not read the reports on the commission to which she so often refers. If she had, she would be aware that they all cite the need for additional staff as an indispensable prerequisite for the resolution of the case backlog problem.

The NDP has always insisted that the commission was underfunded. They had a chance, in their first budget, to address this. They did not. Instead, they froze funding to the commission at last year's level. Now, as of October of this year, the commission likely will have 10 fewer staff to deal with the case backlog. The NDP decision to freeze funding makes addressing the key recommendation of several independent reviews, staff enrichment, next to impossible. Increased funding under the previous government resulted in the hiring of new staff and the development of a case management plan, which has helped the commission to make some steps towards dealing with the backlog.

This minister has done absolutely nothing to deal with this important justice issue, nor has she addressed the troubling reports of discrimination within the commission itself. The provincial Ombudsman, in a recent report on the Ontario Human Rights Commission, expressed great concerns about the backlog and called for the government to take immediate action. When will the minister take meaningful steps to ensure that the Ontario Human Rights Commission can fulfil its mandate?

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Mr B. Murdoch: Yesterday, I brought to the attention of this House the issue of the Minister of the Environment ignoring the advice of her staff and overruling their decisions. But I would like to point out that it is not only she who is at fault. The matter would never have reached the point it has without the contribution of a very inept staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

This House will remember that Noah and Linda Pierce applied fpr a development permit to build a home and create a working farm for their daughter and son-in-law. They proposed to build on the part of the land which was designated as class 7 land and allow the children to keep the house, barn and good farm land in one unit. The hearing officer on the appeal noted that this proposal would secure a farm home for the young couple in which they could start a family and continue farming, both his parents' property and this farm, at a time when it is very difficult for young farmers to become established.

One would think that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would be encouraging such ventures. It appears they are not. The OMAF representative said the case did not comply strictly with Food Land Guidelines, but the hearing officer stated that it does comply with the spirit and purpose and, in any event, the guidelines are just that, only guidelines, not regulations. After reviewing this case, I am astounded that the Ministry of Agricultre and Food, which supposedly speaks for farmers, could make such a serious error in judgement.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to speak today of an initiative in my riding that has been greeted with welcome anticipation, the creation of an additional women's shelter that the women in my riding will have convenient access to. For many years, Women's Community House, a shelter in London for battered women, has had to place many women outside of London simply because there were not enough beds in London. Now a second centre has been announced to serve women and their children fleeing from violent situations.

The new centre, with 12 bedrooms, will provide an additional 30 beds for London. Women's Community House is raising $500,000 for the project. An additional $480,000 for construction is coming from the federal government. The operating costs will be shared by the provincial government and the city of London. This is a fine example of how all levels of government can work together to provide refuge to victims of domestic violence.

As members know, this government, in its budget, has committed an additional $12 million for new beds and enhanced services in emergency shelters and other improvements to services for women who are victims of domestic violence.

As a concrete example of this government's dedication to protecting the lives of women, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues announced on 8 May that in the coming year a $2-million increase in funding will be made to reduce the long waiting list. I am proud that Women's Community House in London has taken active steps to meet this challenge.

PARKDALE COMMUNITY FESTIVAL

Mr Ruprecht: It is with great pride that I would like to tell the members of this Parliament about the Parkdale Community Festival sponsored by the Parkdale Village business improvement area. This will be the largest street festival in the history of Parkdale.

Our community is turning the corner on drugs and crime. In fact, the president, Mr Stancheson, will be presenting some awards to the 11th and 14th police divisions for their commitment and good work to keep our streets safe from drug pushers, pimps and criminals. Our men and women in blue deserve a lot of credit, especially in the Metro area, as they place their lives in danger while helping our communities to stay drug-free.

I am pleased to invite all the members of this House to participate in the opening ceremonies in order to experience the quality and friendly personality of Parkdale's residents and businesses.

ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARD

Mrs Cunningham: It was with shock and disappointment that we learned yesterday of the government's plan to eliminate the monetary award that accompanies the Ontario Scholarship Award Certificate. Since 1959, when the Ontario scholarship program was established by the Progressive Conservative government, it has provided an incentive for thousands of Ontario high school students to work harder and obtain a high standing in their final year.

Today in the member's gallery are four students from the riding of London South who are visiting the Legislative Assembly. I would like to advise the Minister of Education of their comments:

"The $100 was a symbol that we were being recognized by the Ontario government for excelling in academics. The elimination of this will discourage students from pushing a little harder for excellence." The next student said, "Although the $100 is not a lot of money in today's society, every bit helps when you're trying to put yourself through school." The third student advised us: "We weren't consulted. I heard it for the first time on the news last night." The final student said: "It was an incentive to do well. It encouraged us to excel."

An Agenda for People did not include disincentives for young people to excel. The people's agenda promised an opportunity for input and communication. Students are now preparing for their final exams. The Minister of Education's announcement could not have come at a more unfortunate time.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Bisson: I would like at this time to give congratulations to the Ministry of Education, along with a few other things.

As many members are aware, the capital allocation programs were announced last Friday for a number of communities around Ontario. A couple of very long sought after programs in schools that the communities and the boards of education were trying to put together for years finally came to fruition, one in particular being O'Gorman High School, basically known as the portable high school. There were some 20 portable rooms utilized in that high school.

Along with that, there have been some interesting developments within the riding itself. We are seeing some renewed optimism within the riding because of the types of programs this government is doing in attacking the recession by putting the bucks where they are needed, in our infrastructure. Now the mining sector is looking at some more development up in our region and I hope to be able to come back to the House with some very positive announcements on the mining sector on my next occasion.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would like to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon the former member from the former riding of Halton-Burlington, Don Knight, who is seated in the members' gallery west.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RENT REGULATION

Hon Mr Cooke: It is my pleasure to be introducing legislation today that fulfils this government's commitment to provide real and permanent rent control for the tenants of this province.

The Rent Control Act, which I am tabling this afternoon, is the result of broad consultation with tenants, landlords, municipal officials and many others across the province, ranging from representatives of the building trades and financial institutions to antipoverty groups. I appreciate their participation in the development of Ontario's new rent control system. I certainly recognize the genuine emotion this issue elicits and I thank the tenants and landlords who shared their personal experiences and ideas with me.

The formal consultation started in February. I released a discussion paper designed to draw out people's views on how rent control could best be brought to this province. More than 20,000 copies outlining various options on the implementation of rent control were distributed. All members of this Legislature received the options paper, which was tabled with the standing committee on general government.

We also sent out a newsletter to nearly one million households explaining in plain, everyday language what the rental control options were all about. The newsletter included a questionnaire which more than 17,000 people filled out and returned to the ministry. This provided valuable information about the everyday concerns of individual tenants and landlords.

Then, in well-attended public meetings and smaller roundtable sessions in 20 communities across the province, some 1,300 people participated in a discussion about the principles and proposed specifics of a new system of rent control for Ontario.

I personally hosted seven public meetings and a number of smaller roundtable discussions. More than 300 people shared their ideas, concerns and experiences directly with me, with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, and with my caucus colleague the member for Wentworth North.

We also had some 25 meetings with groups having a special interest and expertise in rent control issues. Ministry staff also met with members of these groups to get their input into the proposed system.

The legislation I am tabling today shows we have listened and responded to what we heard during the consultation process. I believe the product is a fair and workable system for everyone.

We have listened to tenants, and we will address their fears of high rent increases and poorly maintained buildings. We have heard the concerns of landlords of small buildings, and the legislation recognizes their situation. We have heard the frustration of landlords and tenants who want a simpler, more understandable system which responds more quickly to their cases.

We have listened to municipalities, building trades, landlords and tenants, all of whom have impressed upon us the importance of capital repairs in maintaining this province's aging rental housing. We have heard about the problem of supplying much-needed rental accommodation in communities across the province.

We have listened and we will now act. We will provide a rent control system that can work in Ontario.

I would like to outline the most important features of the proposed legislation.

At the heart of this legislation are measures intended to ensure that tenants are protected from high rent increases. These measures also provide more certainty for both landlords and tenants who want to know, "How much will the rent go up?"

Under the new system of rent control, annual rent increases will be based on a rent control index. This index will reflect the inflationary costs of running a rental property and will be updated annually. It will be averaged over a three-year period to lessen the impact of sudden increases in inflationary costs.

The index will provide the basis for setting an annual rent control guideline. The guideline will combine the rent control index I have just described and a 2% allowance for expenditures on major repairs, usually called capital expenditures. I will repeat, the rent control guideline will consist of an index based on inflation plus a 2% allowance for capital repairs.

Landlords will be allowed to raise the maximum rents by up to this guideline without applying to the ministry. We will calculate two guidelines each year, one for large buildings and another for small buildings. The guideline for small buildings, those having six units or less, will be higher. This is because we know that small buildings are more expensive per unit to operate than larger buildings. This is the first time that rent regulation legislation has recognized the different realities facing owners of small and large buildings. We think this approach is fair and innovative.

Here is an example of how the new guidelines would work. If the two guidelines had been calculated for this year, the 1991 guideline increase for large buildings would be 4.6% and the guideline for small buildings would be 5.4%.

What about increases above the guideline? There are only five situations in which the landlord can apply to increase rents by more than the guideline, and any increase permitted will be moderate -- no more than 3% above the guideline in one year. Let me make this point clear. In Ontario, the increase in maximum rent will never be more than the guideline plus 3%. Ontario tenants will have the best protection in Canada. The days of 15%, 20% and 50% rent increases are over.

Rent will be allowed to rise above the guideline for the following reasons: significant increases in municipal taxes or in the cost of heating, hydro or water. The fifth and final reason is capital expenditures.

Under the new system, increases for major capital repairs will be allowed only if they are for the following: to maintain the structure and soundness of the building; to meet health, safety and environmental standards; to maintain plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation and air-conditioning systems; to provide access for people with disabilities, or to increase energy conservation.

When landlords apply for rent increases to pay for such significant repairs, they will have to demonstrate that the repairs are not the result of neglect. Tenants and landlords may agree to do other improvements in individual apartments, but rent increases will not exceed 3% above the guideline.

When landlords apply for rent increases above the guideline, they must demonstrate that the 2% allowance for capital expenditures provided in the annual guideline is in fact being used for capital expenditures. In other words, rents cannot increase above the guideline if the landlord does not use the money she or he already received for capital repairs.

Landlords will be allowed to carry forward to the next year rent increases resulting from excess capital costs. Owners of large buildings will be able to carry forward for one year only; owners of smaller buildings will be able to carry forward capital costs for two years. The total rent increase for any one year, however, cannot exceed the guideline plus 3%. This means tenants will no longer be required to finance luxury renovations such as new marble lobbies, as they have had to under the old rent review system.

The 2% allowance for capital expenditures included in the annual guideline plus the annual 3% increase that landlords may apply for provides enough funding for the necessary repairs to Ontario's rental housing. I believe this provision speaks to the fairness of the legislation.

In just a moment I would like to speak about the maintenance of apartments, but at this point I would like to touch briefly on how the new legislation treats capital expenditures done during the transition from one system to another. We heard a lot about this issue during the consultation and we have responded. In moving from the current system to the new one, we plan to allow landlords to claim for capital expenditures which have been substantially completed during the past 18 months. The rent increases which will result will be limited to 3% above the guideline.

I want members to know that this new legislation will not allow landlords to use most of the reasons they have used under the old rent review process to pass on costs leading to high rent increases. I am talking here about such provisions as financial loss, economic loss and increased financing costs. We know these were often used to make tenants pay for the cost of landlords' investments. The Rent Control Act I am introducing will not permit rent increases above the guideline for any of these items. I believe that apartments, rented town houses and so on are people's homes, not simply someone's investments or real estate holdings. Our legislation reflects that view.

We know tenants are worried about high rent increases, but we also heard concerns about inadequate maintenance. As well, municipal officials and many responsible building owners were annoyed and even embarrassed that certain landlords do not feel obligated to provide decent accommodation. So we have decided to get tough about maintenance.

Under the new system, landlords will not be able to claim even the guideline rent increase until they comply with outstanding work orders against their buildings. I am confident that landlords who act on their work orders -- and I would suggest that means most of the landlords in this province -- will agree this is a significant and welcome improvement over the previous law.

The legislation I am introducing today will bring about important changes in administrative and enforcement procedures. Simply put, we are trying to make the rent control system more flexible and responsive.

Under rent control, landlords and tenants will have the right to resolve their differences through a hearing if they so choose. The new system will also provide them with the option of an administrative review without a hearing if they prefer. A decision made by a rent officer may be appealed to the courts on a matter of law only. This will make for a quicker decision-making process for both landlords and tenants.

We see a strengthened role for the rent registry under the new system. The registry is already gearing up to provide more comprehensive information to landlords and tenants about legal rents. As well, the legislation strengthens rent control enforcement by creating tough penalties and new offences.

Now I would like to address the concerns about rental housing supply which were raised by the development and construction industries and the financial institutions. As most members know, there is a real need for more rental accommodation in many parts of the province. While our government is committed to alleviating the shortage through activities in the not-for-profit sector, we also acknowledge private industry's essential role in providing rental housing. To encourage future investment in this area, we have decided to exempt new rental buildings from rent control for a period of five years.

This exemption will apply to rental housing built under a building permit issued on or after today. The five-year exemption period will start on the day the first unit is rented.

Let's be clear. The exemption is only for the first five years of any new building, but we believe this will give landlords a chance to establish viable rental housing and help rent levels settle in. This opportunity gives those wanting to build a chance to go for it. It can stimulate much-needed investment and employment in the development and building sector and create more homes for people to rent.

Before concluding, I want to talk about what is not included in the legislation and why.

Many people came forward to talk about whether so-called care facilities should be covered by rent control. Thousands of older people who live in rest and retirement homes are affected. This is a complex issue. Dr Ernie Lightman is already studying it. We will wait for his report before we make any decisions in this area.

Concerns about rent control coverage for people living in social housing were also raised during the consultation process. Our government intends to deal with those questions through avenues other than rent control legislation.

This is landmark legislation for the people of Ontario. This streamlined rent control system will bring certainty, security and stability to the rental housing market. It will bring us closer to reaching the goal of affordable housing for all, and ultimately to fighting poverty in this province.

Allow me to recap briefly: Tenants will have real protection from high rent increases. Landlords will have a system that allows them to plan for and provide the capital repairs that buildings need. If costs go up for taxes and utilities, landlords can get relief. Stricter enforcement of standards will lead to better-maintained rental housing and the preservation of existing stock. The private sector will have an opportunity to create new rental housing accommodation. Everyone will benefit from a responsive decision-making process.

Nearly three million people are looking to this Legislature to make decisions about rent control that affect their homes, their wellbeing, their security, and these are important decisions. They deserve the immediate attention of members of the House and a review of a standing committee of the Legislature.

The legislation I am tabling today is the result of an extensive consultation process. People across the province have had a real opportunity to participate in the creation of this government policy. I believe the product of that consultation members have before them today is fair to tenants and landlords. The legislation protects tenants and responds to some of the concerns of landlords and the financial community. I look forward to discussing its merits with members of the Legislature for second reading and during the summer. I would like to invite members to study this legislation and I hope and expect to hear positive suggestions for any improvements.

I would also like to personally thank the Ministry of Housing staff who have worked flat out on this legislation for months ac