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

April 9, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HUNTING IN ALGONQUIN PARK

Mr Ramsay: Today I would like to draw the members' attention towards the present situation in Algonquin Park. On Thursday 28 March the Ad Hoc Committee to Save Algonquin Park held a press conference, as I am sure the Minister of Natural Resources is aware. This is a recently formed grass-roots committee that has been formed because people are very concerned about the future of Algonquin Park.

This committee, like many members of this House, is very concerned that the minister proceeded with little or no consultation before his 18 January decision to allow unlimited hunting and fishing in the park and unlimited access for motorized vehicles and motorboats by the members of the Golden Lake Indian Band in Algonquin Park.

At the recent Toronto Sportsmen's Show the committee distributed over 8,000 leaflets petitioning the government to rescind this NDP initiative.

Today I would like to formally present to the minister on behalf of the committee this small portion of these signed leaflets. I am sure that many more have been received by the minister's office as well as that of the Premier.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: At 3:15 this afternoon at Queen's Park a coalition of victims' rights groups will hold a news conference to respond to the government's recent musings suggesting that it is breaking its promise to restore the right to sue to innocent accident victims. These organizations represent the concerns of accident victims who, through no fault of their own, have had their lives changed dramatically. Because of the Liberal no-fault legislation, they have no right to recoup their true economic losses and they have lost the right to seek compensation for future lost income.

Every member of our society has the potential to become an innocent accident victim. Currently the unfair and discriminatory insurance legislation created by the former Liberal government denies thousands of innocent victims the fundamental right to sue for pain and suffering. That is why the present government must honour its commitment to the people of Ontario to restore the right to sue for innocent accident victims.

Even more sadly, this government, which promised voters last summer that it was committed to restoring the right to sue, may break that promise. These victims were important during the election campaign, but now the government is choosing to relegate them to a vacuum in our society where they will be forgotten and denied their fundamental rights.

The Premier must ignore his no-tort troika on the front bench and exercise true leadership. He must restore the right to sue immediately for the innocent accident victims of Ontario.

ANNIVERSARY OF LAMBTON FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mrs MacKinnon: During the past weekend it was my pleasure to attend the 50th anniversary of the Lambton Federation of Agriculture.

The founding meeting of the federation was held in April 1941 and in the years to follow several of the county's commodity organizations were formed, such as wheat, hog, sugar, egg, honey and vegetable producer groups.

The early federation pioneered the Lambton Film Council that took a film projector and National Film Board movies to one-room schoolhouses between 1946 and 1969. To provide health care insurance to farmers, the federation was involved in the early formation of the Lambton Co-Operative Medical Services Organization. The county federation action in 1968 led to a decision by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to withhold property taxes, which in turn led to property tax rebates. This has saved farmers considerable amounts of income in the years following this accomplishment.

Currently the federation has 1,100 members, which amounts to about one third of the farm population in Lambton county. Some of the interests of farmers that the Lambton Federation of Agriculture is working on this year are the new tree-planting bylaw, presenting briefs to our local politicians, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture tent at the 1991 plowing match and the never-ending canvassing for members to keep the organization strong and effective.

The county of Lambton is very fortunate to have such a dedicated and productive organization working for the best interests of the farm community in Lambton and in Ontario.

TWINNING OF AURORA AND LEKSAND

Mr Beer: On 27 March the town of Aurora had the pleasure of welcoming some 61 residents of Leksand, Sweden. They are on a two-week friendship visit which will end this Thursday 11 April. The two towns have been officially twins since 1975, although they have been involved in a variety of exchanges for some 20 years, since 1971.

The visits combine social, athletic, governmental and business elements. This year, for example, a minor hockey team from Leksand has played a number of games with Aurora and other area hockey teams and, I might add, has done very well.

The Swedish group is led by the vice-mayor of Leksand, Lasse Nyburg, and last week he and Mrs Ingrid Sohlin of the Swedish delegation visited the Legislature in Metropolitan Toronto. While here, other members of the delegation are looking at how our system of local government works and at a number of environmental issues.

I want to congratulate Mayor John West, members of his council, members of the Aurora legion and all those who helped to organize this exchange. The twinning of towns and cities from country to country is an important way of building better understanding between peoples of different nations.

At the welcoming brunch given by the town on Easter weekend, it was clear that even after just a few days, new friendships were being made and old ones cemented. We must never underestimate the power of people to build strong bridges through programs such as the Aurora-Leksand twinning program. May they have many, many more.

RICHARD BRENNAN

Mrs Cunningham: I rise today to congratulate on behalf of my party the new president of the Queen's Park press gallery, Richard Brennan of the Windsor Star.

Richard was named new gallery president this morning by acclamation. This marks the second year in a row that the election for president has been uncontested, a fact which leads me and many of my elected colleagues in this chamber to wonder just why the press gallery is so afraid of a good, old-fashioned election campaign.

That aside, I think the change at the helm of the press gallery today is a significant one. Richard's election, following on the heels of outgoing, two-term president Leon Korbee of CKCO-TV in Kitchener and CJOH-TV in Ottawa, shows once again the importance of regional media outlets at Queen's Park.

While we have to admit that our regular question period committee meetings would be lost without our morning dose of the Toronto daily press clippings, I think we all recognize the role that the regional press at Queen's Park plays in lending a fresh perspective to the news around us. In fact, it is the regional recorders here at Queen's Park on whom many of us rely.

Richard, who it seems has left no newspaper unturned in his effort to put a Richard Brennan byline in every print outlet in this province, will, I am sure, bring his down-home Brantford good sense to the position of president.

I hope all members of the House will join me in congratulating Richard and other members of the Queen's Park press gallery executive, Randy Rath, Paula Todd, Jill Troyer and Emilia Casella.

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE

Mr Huget: The Chippewas of Sarnia reserve has recently completed a comprehensive substance abuse assessment under the direction of a local steering committee mandated by the band council. The Chippewas of Sarnia identified alcohol and drug abuse as a serious problem in their community and one that affected every aspect of community life. The band council decided that if it was to provide direction towards building a community which balances the cultural, social, physical and economic needs of all of its members, it must provide leadership in addressing the problem of substance abuse.

The council therefore is introducing a policy of limited tolerance with respect to the use of alcohol and drugs in its community. The policy will address the various aspects of substance abuse and will include intervention and treatment strategies, control measures, community awareness programs and the development and enforcement of appropriate bylaws and codes of conduct. In addition, band funds will not be used to sponsor or promote events where alcohol or drugs are available and band programs and community organizations will be encouraged to hold community events and activities that are alcohol- and drug-free.

I hope all members of this House will join me in congratulating the chief and council for taking this very important self-initiative and commend their leadership and commitment to improving the quality of life on the Chippewas of Sarnia reserve.

CANADIAN FORCES OVERSEAS

Mr H. O'Neil: I am sure the honourable members are well aware of the Canadian navy ships which sailed for the Persian Gulf, the CF-18 fighter aircraft which were deployed at Qatar and the field hospital Canada sent to Saudi Arabia.

However, a major and vital part of Canada's contribution may not be as well known to all; that is, the men and women of the air transport group at Canadian Forces Base Trenton located in my riding of Quinte. During the last eight months they mounted the largest airlift in modern Canadian Forces history. Some 2,000 men and women of the air transport group in Canada and more than 450 aircrew and groundcrew, principally from Trenton, were deployed to Germany, the Mediterranean and the Gulf.

These people airlifted Canadian Forces personnel and equipment almost halfway around the world, sustained them with daily flights and are now completing their redeployment home -- nearly 15,000 flying hours in all.

These unsung heroes were literally the first Canadians into the Gulf and will be the last out. They worked extremely long hours under very challenging conditions: under threat of chemical and biological attack, were scudded and were required to fly air-refuelling, resupply and communications missions in a complex and difficult air environment, which as we know included thousands of combat sorties per day.

I am proud to represent the many men and women of Canada's air transport group at Canadian Forces Base Trenton, whose outstanding effort certainly contributed to the coalition victory and helped free Kuwait.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Jackson: As the member for Burlington South, and with the assistance of the member for Oakville South, we will today table petitions signed by the 550 workers at Tridon Ltd in both Oakville and Burlington before this House, but I would also like to send copies of the petition to the Premier and the Minister of Labour.

It is no secret that the prime reason for closures such as Tridon's is Ontario's weakened economic grip on the competitiveness in our marketplaces. Since the NDP came to power, with its determined unwillingness to assist companies with their heavy tax burdens, even more plants are now closing. For example, Tridon paid about $400,000 last year with the employer health tax, and in addition it spent over $700,000 in workers' compensation costs alone.

Where was this government with needed tax breaks and other forms of assistance for companies like Tridon? In his throne speech, this Premier promised co-operation with all sectors in society. What he has created, however, is isolation and confrontation with that sector.

Where is the government's program for job retraining? The labour adjustment committee, started just last week, seven months after the closure announcement at Tridon, amounts to less than $200 per worker; 75% of the workers at Tridon are women and to date only 10 of the 550 workers have found other jobs, and they are concerned that these adjustment committees are inexperienced and they should be asked to react quickly with specific retraining programs and skill linkages. It is in this climate in this province that this government must focus its energies and its resources towards stimulating these companies, not confronting them during these economic times.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Wood: As the members are well aware from televised reports, a large rally was held last week in the centre of the town of Kapuskasing involving thousands of men, women and children. They were in opposition to a decision made by the management of Spruce Falls Power and Paper Co. to shut down three of the mill's four paper machines and lay off 1,200 workers by 18 November of this year. Some 1,600 employees have been working without wage increases since 1 May, which leaves less money in the communities to be spent.

This past Saturday the Minister of Northern Development, along with the Minister of Mines, joined me in Kapuskasing where we spent the day listening to and consulting with the mayors and reeves of the 14 towns making up the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association about this situation. We also met with the representatives of the Spruce Falls Purchase Employees Group and members of a group called Friends of Kapuskasing. To finalize the day, we met with representatives of labour groups in Kapuskasing and surrounding area, as well as the local labour council.

The community has shown complete solidarity in opposition to the massive layoff and has requested the Ontario government to do everything within its means to protect jobs in this small town under crisis.

I would like to thank the honourable ministers for their welcome participation, as well as other members of the cabinet, along with the Premier, for their ongoing efforts in finding a solution to this very serious crisis.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

The Speaker: On Tuesday 2 April 1991, the member for Dufferin-Peel rose on a question of privilege. He informed the House that he had received a letter from a solicitor for a provincial civil servant concerning a 1 March 1991 radio broadcast of remarks the member made in a recorded interview with a reporter, and questioned whether the letter amounted to a breach of privilege or a contempt of the House for obstructing, threatening or attempting to force or intimidate a member of the assembly, as prescribed by paragraph 45(1)2 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

I have carefully reviewed the member's submission, the transcript of the broadcast in question, and the relevant parliamentary authorities and precedents and I am now in a position to report to the House.

Section 37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which enacts the common law rule of freedom of speech, provides as follows:

"A member of the assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution, arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing brought by him by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said by him before the assembly or a committee thereof."

This most fundamental privilege of members allows members to express their views in proceedings in Parliament without fear of an action for libel or slander. Although what constitutes a proceeding in Parliament may encompass circumstances beyond the formal transaction of business in the assembly or its committees, I am of the opinion that I would be extending the definition of privilege too far if the remarks of the member made in an interview outside the chamber some months after questions were posed and answers made in the House and possibly in changed or different circumstances were included.

I have also considered whether the sending of the solicitor's letter arising out of the member's remarks on the radio broadcast constituted an improper means of interfering with or influencing the member in his parliamentary conduct. The solicitor's letter cited by the member referred to legal proceedings contemplated against the member as a result of further repetition by the member of statements made in the radio broadcast or similar allegations made by the member outside the Legislature.

This letter does not relate to a proceeding in Parliament and does not appear to be calculated to affect the member's course of action in the assembly or its committees. As such, I am of the opinion that it does not constitute an obstruction, attempted intimidation or intimidation of the member in his parliamentary conduct.

Therefore, in the circumstances in this matter, I find that a prima facie case of privilege has not been established.

I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for providing me with advance notice of his concerns and trust that my ruling may offer some guidance to all members.

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, on a very brief point of privilege for you to entertain: I noted yesterday that the member for St George-St David rose in the House with regard to an alternative provincial representative in a constituency, and I think it is unfair and certainly it affects my privileges that I am not informed who the alternative provincial representative is for the provincial constituency of St Catharines.

Hon Mr Wildman: Oh, that was shown to be completely incorrect.

Mr Bradley: You will find that right across the province of Ontario -- because the Minister of Natural Resources does intervene -- the calls are coming in from across the province of Ontario indicating who this person is. The reason I say this is that I would like to know how much of my constituency office salary I should allocate to this person, whether I should allocate some room in the constituency office and how much of the workload the person would like to share with me.

The Speaker: This is certainly a point of some considerable interest as generated from yesterday's discussion in the chamber. It is definitely not a point of privilege. Surprise.

Mr Nixon: I ask for the consent of the members so that the House may mark the passing of a former member.

Agreed to.

RICHARD TAYLOR

Mr Nixon: The death of Richard (Dick) Taylor in Bermuda on Sunday marked the passing of a great Canadian and a very useful resident of the province of Ontario.

He served in the Legislature -- and I was a colleague of his -- from 1963 to 1967, representing the constituency of Timiskaming, and brought forward in a moderate, well-informed way not only the issues from the north and northeast, but had a clear understanding of many of the issues that we face even today.

He had extensive experience in the school board locally and the hospital board, and also was a very successful businessman as president of Taylor Hardware and one of the business people who really founded and expanded the northern telecommunication system.

I was very pleased indeed when he decided to enter the Legislature, and found working with him a great pleasure. As a matter of fact, we had a very close personal relationship and at one stage he acceded to my request to be chairman of a campaign committee in preparation for the election of 1967.1 had only entered the leadership a few months before that election campaign, rather unexpectedly and, I assure you, Mr Speaker, reluctantly. Dick was one of the many friends I had at that time who were prepared to come forward and assist.

While that is just of peripheral interest to most of the members of the House, it is an indication of how much confidence I had in his judgement and his capability.

I would just say that from my point of view his service in the community and this House was honourable and effective, and from my point of view, I have lost a very good friend. He and his wife and family were well regarded here and, of course, in their own community, and I know that we extend our condolences to them.

Mr Ramsay: I would just like to add my condolences on my behalf and also on behalf of the people of Timiskaming whom I represent. I would just like to add that I have been a personal friend of the Taylor family for the last 16 years and I would like them to know that we all share in their grief today.

Mrs Cunningham: The members of our caucus and certainly former members who served in the House with Mr Taylor would like to extend our sincere sympathy to Mrs Taylor and members of her family, and equally to Mr Nixon, who was his personal friend, at his loss.

I find myself at a bit of a disadvantage, as do other members of the House, I am sure, but I think it is very appropriate to perhaps remind the House of some of the interests of Mr Taylor as he worked so hard on behalf of his constituents from Timiskaming. So I would like your indulgence, Mr Speaker, to just read his words into the record as he himself read them in the speech from the throne on 10 February 1964, just to remind us that some things have not changed the way he would have liked and that it is our responsibility to continue on.

He said: "We in northern Ontario feel, and with considerable justification, that the rest of the province does not understand nor is it concerned with our development problems. We feel that only in so far as our natural resources can produce immediate revenues is the province as a whole interested."

He goes on in that throne speech debate to say, "We feel that the province listens only with one ear when northern problems are being discussed and, again, in Ontario it will only be by recognizing and understanding northern problems and encouraging northern development that our province will maintain its position as the leading province of our Dominion." The challenge is still there, and I think former members of this House and certainly Mr Taylor would be most appreciative of our ongoing efforts.

Hon Miss Martel: I had hoped that my predecessor had served long enough in this place so that he might have been able to relate to me some stories about Mr Taylor, but alas, the only person who can do that now is the member for Brant-Haldimand.

I would like to say, though, on behalf of our party, that we would like to extend our condolences to the family. In reading through the biography of Mr Taylor it was evident that he had a very colourful and exciting career in business, both in the telephone and mining sectors. I would suggest to all members that the four years that he spent here were, as we all hope, probably ones in which he dedicated a great deal of his time to the north and tried to make a contribution not only with respect to his own riding but with respect to dealings right across the province of Ontario.

It is what we all hope we can do at the end of the day and I guess an expression that we all hope someone will pass on to us as well. So on behalf of our party, I would like to extend our condolences to the family at the passing of Mr Taylor.

The Speaker: The kind and thoughtful contributions by the members who have spoken today will of course be sent along with our deepest sympathies to the Taylor family.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Premier. I understand that he met with the President of Mexico. He did not meet with the President of Mexico, he indicates by shaking his head, but may later in the day. In that connection I know that the House is interested, indeed, in statements made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, reported this morning, that he is going to try to form alliances with various American interests who are opposed to trilateral free trade.

I wonder if the Premier could indicate what those alliances might be, what groups in the United States might be associated with efforts made by the government of Ontario and if in fact part of the budget of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology or of any other part of the government is going to be allocated in this regard.

Hon Mr Rae: I can simply report to the House, first of all, that as scheduled I will be meeting with President Salinas later on this afternoon and I will be accompanied by the Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology. I anticipate a good exchange with the President. I am glad he has come to Canada and I am glad that he has come to have this exchange. I should also add to the Leader of the Opposition that over the next couple of weeks I understand the Mexican Leader of the Opposition is also coming to Canada and to Toronto, and if it is possible I hope I will be able to meet with him.

I think what is planned, quite simply, is that we will as a government express our views very clearly. We will obviously be listening and watching the debate as it unfolds in the United States Congress and our views will be expressed very clearly, alongside those many others who feel very strongly that given the experience we have had as a people with the first round in the North American free trade round, the protection of the interests of working people, of businesses that are working here, as they are elsewhere, is critical.

The question of environmental protection, the question of social standards, the question of labour standards: These are all issues which relate to the proverbial level playing field. I have met with various businesses. I have met with those who are in favour of this and we have met with those who are opposed. We will express very clearly, in every way possible, the views of the people of Ontario -- I believe the majority of the people of the province -- that the trade policies of the federal government and the approaches that are being taken are not at this point in the best interests of the people of the country.

Mr Nixon: I noticed in the Toronto Sun for 7 February that the Premier said, "I'm not going to stand here and promise that I can stop something when I'm not convinced that that's exactly what I can do." Another quote from the Minister of Labour, in his own inimitable style, "I'm not sure what the hell we can do about it." Since the Premier and the minister's colleague the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology stated quite clearly that he was allying himself with American opponents to the trilateral agreement, I thought it would be appropriate if the Premier would tell us what those American forces are against the trilateral agreement are whom we are being allied, and indicate what resources are going to be put into a program which the Premier says nothing can be done about.

We can debate the efficacy of trilateral free trade, either now or on another occasion, but the question has to do with the minister's indication that somehow we are forming alliances with American interests in this regard.

Hon Mr Rae: This is going to be a debate across North America. Let me stress to the Leader of the Opposition that between now and 31 May, as he no doubt is aware, we have no means in Canada of changing the policies of the federal government, because they are carried out by executive fiat. In the United States, as the Leader of the Opposition well knows, between now and 31 May the American Congress is seized of an important question, and that is whether or not the negotiating process will be fast-tracked. He knows that full well.

Finally, there is a debate going on in Mexico itself, which is entirely healthy, as there is here. We have, we hope, three open societies in which governments are free, as are people, as are interest groups of all kinds, to express their views with respect to this issue. The view of the government of Ontario is very clear. We are going to be doing what we can to advance the interests of the people of the province of Ontario and to work with those groups through our society and in others which share our view. I think it would be rather strange if we were to sit back and do nothing in the face of these developments.

Mr Nixon: The Premier, following the news as carefully as he does, would know that 50 workers at the Penetanguishene TRW seatbelt assembly belt have been laid off this week, as their jobs are being transferred to Mexico, and a Mexican GM plant recently was awarded a trim contract for Firebirds and Camaros to be produced in Quebec beginning in 1992. The contract was taken away from the GM trim plant in Windsor and affects 80 jobs. These things are similar in their impact.

I simply want to ask the Premier, who has strong views on this, as have many members of this House, to which organizations in the United States we are allying ourselves and, if in fact money is being made available to fight a battle that the Premier indicates cannot be fought here, that are we in fact allying ourselves with American interests specifically and, if so, who are they and what money is involved.

Hon Mr Rae: The member talks about American interests or US business interests or whatever. I have made it very clear. There are a variety of groups. First of all, let me answer his first question, if I can, as directly as I can. His first question was, is money being allocated and is money being transferred or something, innuendoes to that effect. The answer to that question is no, as clearly as I can state it.

Obviously the government, through its trade offices in the United States, through its representation which it makes as a government, as other governments will do, has expressed its views very clearly. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is conducting a great deal of work in this area.

We are developing as much expertise as we can and we intend to share that information with the House as we develop it, with the public and with everyone, so people can see that the impact of this deal, if it proceeds in the way in which it is proposed to proceed both by President Bush and by Prime Minister Mulroney, this will have a very negative impact on Ontario's economy. I think we are entitled to share that information, to invest some taxpayers' dollars in protecting the interests of people. That is the extent of what we are doing.

Mr Nixon: The only information the Premier will not share with the House is the answer to my question, reiterated twice.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I have another question for the Premier that, once again, is based on a quote associated with his campaign, "It is wrong in a province as rich as Ontario that there even needs to be food banks," 4 August 1990; and another one from the honourable Minister of Community and Social Services, for whom I have a high regard, of 9 April, "To say that we would effectively end them during this term would be impossible."

Will the Premier indicate what the policy of the government is in this regard? Is it as stated a year ago when he was seeking election or is it as his minister has stated, which is really a rather weak approach to the situation, where she indicates that it cannot be solved?

Hon Mr Rae: I am going to refer this question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon Mrs Akande: I must say that certainly it is the goal of this government to eliminate the need for food banks, and to that end we have been working consistently. Since my appointment and since our arrival as the government we have done many things which seek to do that.

Mr Nixon: In the Legislature on 18 December 1989, not so long ago, the present Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, said, referring to the then Premier, "I want to know why he cannot set a target, why he cannot stand up in this House and say that, as far as the government of Ontario is concerned, there will be no food banks in operation after 1990."

It is not enough to say, "That was then, now is now." This is a need that is felt in this city and in this province and something associated directly with the election of the NDP. There were many reasonable people who responded to the criticism of the then Leader of the Opposition about the Peterson government, that although we were doing what we felt we could do, it was insufficient and they voted for them and voted against us.

For the minister to indicate that the solution is not apparent for the next five years is irresponsible of herself and the Premier of the province. What can she tell this House is going to move towards the solutions that all of us will support here, and not the timetable that she has indicated is slippery and without function?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, what I have identified for this group is that in fact this government has already begun to eliminate the need for food banks. I will be very happy to recount what we have done. We have in fact added the increases to social assistance which have resulted in the reduction of --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Mr Nixon: I think the minister would -- I am sorry, is the minister going to go on?

Interjections.

Hon Mrs Akande: If I may finish, we have increased those increases, which have resulted in a reduction of people going to food banks, which has been reported in the newspapers. We have added workers to make people much more quickly eligible for FBA, and that of course puts money in people's pockets.

We have in fact initiated in this House

an act which would make people responsible for the support of their children, legislation which, by the way, is being held up in committee by the opposition. That would put considerable money in people's --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could I just have a moment. I appreciate that occasionally there are questions asked when the people who are having questions asked of them who are not particularly happy with the questions. Sometimes there are responses given and folks listening to the responses are not particularly happy. But what would certainly make me happy is if those who are receiving the questions could listen to them and those who are receiving the responses could listen to those. I take it that the minister was about to complete her response without being provocative.

Hon Mrs Akande: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Once again, may I say that we continue to work. We have moved to make possible a great deal of responsibility and response by the municipalities, through our actions giving some assistance and some relief to them. We have just recently received the implementation report from Back on Track, which we are studying, and will bring things to this House.

Mr Nixon: As far as I can tell, the honourable minister has improved the payments for social assistance by about 2%. Our government had approved an expenditure of a 5% increase and she raised that to 7%, which is commendable, and the Treasurer is supporting her in that, but to indicate that is going to allay the problems in food banks is simply not appropriate. When she wants a timetable for doing this and a procedure, she need only look at the NDP minority report to the standing committee on social development with a task force on food banks. The whole Legislature at that time was extremely interested in this.

They came forward with certain proposals, but the NDP had a specific four-year program to eliminate food banks. The main quote from their report was, "No strategy to allay hunger is acceptable if it does not propose effective action at the earliest possible moment."

The honourable minister has indicated that because of the recession the Treasurer is not supporting her adequately in this because he has no money, in spite of the fact that I believe that this in fact is not true. If there was ever a time to do something about food banks, it is when the recession is on, not after the recession is over and the Treasurer returns to a proper cash flow.

Would the minister not indicate that because of her important position in the cabinet as Minister of Community and Social Services and her undoubted influence on her colleagues, she can loosen something up in this government and come forward with a plan, even the famous NDP four-year plan which it put before the Legislature, and begin to keep at least this important promise?

Hon Mrs Akande: I must say that the member's

interpretation that the recession has in some way prevented the Treasurer from easing something up is indeed liberal and creative, if not accurate. Let me say, however, that one of the things that we have done which of course focuses on long-term solutions is putting people back to work through the $700-million recession package. We have also looked at fairer taxation rates. If the timetable is one the member is focusing on, one of the things one must consider in being responsible is the conditions at the time, the recession which is here and the deficit which we inherited, might I say, unexpectedly.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. It has to do with how the NDP has already run up a $3-billion deficit even before the Treasurer has tabled his first budget. I know the Treasurer will blame Ottawa, he will blame the recession, he will blame the last Liberal government -- I have a little sympathy there -- and very soon, I presume, he will start blaming Mexico. In fact, it seems everyone and everything and everybody is at fault for Ontario's deteriorating fiscal condition except for the NDP government that is actually doing all the spending.

Since the government is so broke -- we have heard today that it is too broke to fulfil its commitment to eradicate food banks, it is too broke to live up to most of the election commitments in the agenda it brought -- I wonder if the Treasurer can tell me, if the government is this broke, what new spending controls he has put into place to control his own government's spending.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the leader of the third party, being the fairminded person I know him to be -- at least he was when we were in opposition together -- would acknowledge the fact that the deficit we are now dealing with for the fiscal year just ended, 1990-91, $3 billion, was caused totally by the recession. It is not difficult to sort out the numbers, when our revenues were falling and, as a result of revenues falling, our expenditures were climbing, in many cases because of a statutory obligation we have to look after people who find themselves unemployed and on the welfare rolls.

I do not think it is appropriate to simply say that the NDP is responsible for the deficit. That is simply not accurate.

I would say as well that this government has not abandoned its determination to see the end of food banks. We remain convinced now, as we always have been, that it is not appropriate in a wealthy province to have food banks, and we will be working to that end. That has not changed.

If the leader of the third party would be fair, he would acknowledge the fact that if we were to start implementing, right now, on a fast track, all of the promises contained in the Agenda for People, he would be the first one on his feet condemning us for not controlling expenditures in the province. So I think that the leader of the third party should get his story straight.

Mr Harris: What I am interested in finding out -- the Treasurer gave me not one single control mechanism. That was the question. He had an opportunity, he took five minutes and he did not come back with one.

Obviously we know that $105,000 for the map downstairs was not part of his expenditure control program; either that or that was the top priority for the province: $105,000 to put some little lightbulbs on the map downstairs. That was the Temagami one, if the Treasurer will recall.

Nor did controls seem to apply to the 6% salary hike the NDP gave to the public service at a time when thousands in the private sector are jobless. I think the figure we have all agreed on is that 1,600 per day are taking a 100% cut in pay, on average, since this government assumed office, across this province.

I would like to ask the Treasurer a specific question, since he could not give me any general answer. Some 22,000 employees come under the umbrella of the Legislative Assembly who are not in the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, as I understand it. Their increases ranged from 5.5% for management to 5.8% for administration. I believe those are the settlements that were agreed on there.

Could the Treasurer tell me, over and above that, what is the percentage or the dollar figure that will be spent for the up to 8% merit pay each and every one of those individuals who is not at the maximum is entitled to this year, on top of their 5.5% or 5.8%? Can he tell us that?

Hon Mr Laughren: I cannot give the leader of the third party that specific number. I would be quite happy to find out what it is.

But I think it is not appropriate, either, for the leader of the third party to indicate for some strange reason that there are new lightbulbs in the map downstairs and that we are responsible for that. He should speak to his colleague the member for Parry Sound, who sits on the Board of Internal Economy, I believe, who helped make those kinds of decision. I think he should be more fair-minded about these things.

I can tell the leader of the third party that we are indeed very serious about controlling the expenditures of the province. We went through an exercise with the estimates, approving the estimates for 1991-92, and when the budget is brought down, the leader of the third party will see that we are indeed serious about expenditure control. We will wait till that document is delivered, and I think the leader of the third party would agree with me.

Mr Harris: Yesterday the Chairman of the Management Board, when we asked about merit pay or reclassification, said: "I don't have a clue. We just give it; we don't know how much it costs. We don't know." Now we have the Treasurer who does not have a clue about the up to 8% everybody is eligible for who is not at maximum in the 22,000 staff there. We have 66,000 OPSEU members and the 22,000 here.

The Treasurer brings up the member for Parry Sound, who sits on the Board of Internal Economy. On average over the past few years, this has been an extra up to 3% over and above the 5.8% cost in total. When you exclude the ones who are already at maximum, that means on average people getting merit pay increases or reclassifications are getting about 5%, plus COLA of another 5%, and we are into double-digit increases for all of these employees at a time when the private sector is laying people off and they are becoming unemployed.

What concerns me is the fact that the Treasurer does not know, that it is all so open-ended. I cannot believe that neither the Treasurer nor the Chairman of Management Board know. They obviously have no spending controls on the programs, and they do not even know how much it is costing in dollars or in percentage terms for these increases in this year. Is that not true, or does the Treasurer have some figures that he has actually budgeted?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member of the third party is not being fair. Of course we know what those costs are. Because I do not have them in my hip pocket as I sit here is no reason to pretend that we do not have any control over what they are and that we are not serious about controlling the expenditures in the province. That is simply not true.

Mr Harris: The member for Parry Sound knew and he voted against every one of them at the Board of Internal Economy, because they could not provide the costs. They have no controls, and that is obvious.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier. I am sending the Premier a copy and I have in my hand a copy of CUPE 1000 News dated March 1991. This is a newsletter to the membership of CUPE put out by Ontario Hydro employees' union, CUPE Local 1000.

As I was flipping through it, I noticed a very flattering photo of the Premier's Minister of Energy following a meeting with CUPE's executive. I would like to quote the union president in the accompanying article: "I'm totally convinced that being affiliated to the NDP gave us opportunities we would never have had otherwise."

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I think the response from the Premier's back benches confirms that this is part of the strategy.

Yesterday outside the House the Premier said there is no inside track at Queen's Park. Given that affiliation means contributing your union dues, a percentage thereof, to the NDP, I would like to ask the Premier if he does not call this the inside track that CUPE now has because it donates to his party.

Hon Mr Rae: The reality of our time and of a democratic society in this province has been for, I would think, the last 50 or 60 years or so -- I am trying to recall which was the first trade union to affiliate to a political party, but I believe the mine workers' union in Cape Breton was the first union to affiliate to the then Co-operative Commonwealth Federation some time in the 1930s.

It has been a tradition of our democratic society that trade unions, first of all, are democratic organizations, that they are entitled to affiliate to the New Democratic Party, and as a result of that affiliation are entitled to send delegates to a convention. That is the way it has been in the New Democratic Party, in power and out of power, and we have been out of power far longer than we have been in power.

There are steelworker locals that are affiliated, there are auto worker unions that are affiliated, there are many trade union members who are able through their trade union to become part of the New Democratic Party. The fact that people can participate in the life and work of the New Democratic Party is a fact of which I am very proud.

We called CUPE. We asked them what they had to do to rent the Bob Rae government, and they told us that as of last September, the union stewards began to pay a per capita membership to the NDP from the union dues. It is as simple as that, and now they say they have "opportunities we would have never had otherwise."

Is this what the Premier meant last 6 August when he talked about open government?

Hon Mr Rae: I literally cannot understand the difficulty that the leader of the third party is having with the principle that is involved here, and one that has been in place for a long time. They receive money as a political party from banks and from companies and from individuals.

We receive contributions as a party from working people and from ordinary Canadians, and yes, it is a matter of record, a well-known fact, documented -- you can read it in any paper, you can read it in any financial return that is ever filed anywhere -- union affiliation per capita dues are paid to the federal New Democratic Party as a matter of course. That is not news, it is not different and it does not lead to any difference with respect to the policies and directions of the government of Ontario.

Mr Harris: Yesterday we discovered that the party faithful had special influence with the Bob Rae government. Earlier we found that others had to pay $800; that was the price for others who were not part of the faithful. Last month, since the member for Simcoe West has never received an apology, we found out that riding presidents have a special place, a special access to this government, and now we see that by financially affiliating to the NDP, unions too can be part of this élite.

Maybe the Premier does not see anything wrong with this. I am not questioning the right of unions to affiliate. What I am questioning is this: The union stewards affiliated and they have clearly indicated in this brochure, in this document, which is a campaign document, to convince all of the members of Hydro to affiliate, that it will give us opportunities we have never had otherwise. There is going to be a vote among the members of CUPE whether they will all affiliate; in other words, check off their dues to go to the NDP so it can propagate nuclear power.

Does the Premier agree with the stewards who are telling their membership it should affiliate so it can get special access, as opposed to just donating to a political party?

Hon Mr Rae: In the

preamble to his question, the leader of the third party has made several allegations with respect to special access, allegations which are totally unfounded; they are completely false. Now he is saying he does not object to the principle of affiliation with the party of one's choice. I am saying to the leader of the third party that there is no special access involved in any way, shape or form. There is only the traditional right of people to decide to join and participate in the political party of their choice, which is a fundamental, democratic right in our society today.

Mr Curling: Strange things happen on the way to power, don't they?

RACE RELATIONS

Mr Curling: My question is to the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Last week the minister announced an anti-racism strategy, and today I want her to follow through on her government's stated commitment to combat racial discrimination. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is concluding an investigation into racially discriminatory practices by two well-known employment agencies. The minister is aware that

section 26 of the Human Rights Code of Ontario states: "The commission is responsible to the minister for the administration of this act."

Will the minister use this legislative authority and call upon the Ontario Human Rights Commission to reinvestigate this matter and effect a settlement that is not merely a wrist slap for agencies which practise systemic discrimination?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I would like to thank my honourable opponent and critic for this question, because we are very concerned about the discrimination that faces many people in our society. That is one of the reasons we did implement and bring in the anti-racist strategy. As the member probably is aware, since his government implemented this procedure, I have an arm's-length relationship with the commission. I also have to tell him that the settlement he is discussing right now is not complete, so I cannot appropriately say I will enact anything until we have a final resolution to the settlement.

When we do have that final resolution to the settlement, as any court case has in any legal jurisdiction, we will then comment on it.

I thank the member for his concern and I too am concerned about this. Again, I must reiterate that this is a high priority for our government, to eliminate racism in all sectors.

Mr Curling: I want the minister to understand, and I know she does, that this issue is a moral and a legal responsibility of hers to stand against systemic discrimination.

As the minister will also be aware, the Ontario Human Rights Commission's handling of this issue so far has been severely criticized by a former commission member as being pathetic. As she knows, today the Toronto Star editorial points out the differences in her handling of this issue and that of the New York City Human Rights Commission, which is seeking more than $1 million in damages for three employment agencies alleged to have practised discrimination.

If, as the minister stated, she is unprepared at this moment to call for the Ontario Human Rights Commission to effect a more stringent settlement in this case, a settlement which I feel, and I know the people feel, would send a very clear and unequivocal message to employment agencies across the province, will the minister today commit to establishing clear mandatory guidelines and ensure that these guidelines will be adhered to by all employment agencies in Ontario? Will she also commit to work with the Minister of Labour and develop legislative amendments to the Employment Agencies Act, which will provide for meaningful sanctions in case of discrimination?

Hon Ms Ziemba: In fact, that is what we are actually doing right at this moment, discussing with the Minister of Labour for very clear and definite guidelines. We are also going to implement in the very near future mandatory legislated employment equity which also will clearly break down those systemic barriers we see happening, not only in employment agencies, but in all sectors. We have appointed an employment equity commissioner who is out there right now consulting with all the various groups so that we can get the best-defined legislation in place.

I have said simply yes, we are looking into all of those effects and that we will have a good, clear guideline, both in the Labour Relations Act and also within our mandatory legislated employment equity. We are working very quickly to make sure that we break down those systemic barriers, as the member said, because it is very important. I share his concerns and I thank him again. As he has said, he will be assisting me in making sure that we break down all of those racist barriers that face us today.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. This morning, we witnessed on the lawn of the Legislature the frustration of those caught in the injustice of what is essentially only a temporary piece of legislation, the dreaded Bill 4. The consultation process which has taken place to provide options for permanent rent control legislation has been unbelievably biased, so it is no surprise to me that the minister's green paper does not deal with the issue of capital expenditures under Bill 4.

As the minister is well aware, numerous landlords across this province have begun, in good faith, capital expenditure work on their buildings, but are now caught in the Bill 4 freeze. All capital expenditure work in the province has ground to a halt until the minister makes clear his intentions on this matter in permanent legislation which he intends to table before the end of June.

Obviously, if the minister intends to have this legislation on the table by that time, a preferred option for capital expenditures lost during the moratorium period must exist at this time. Would the minister please tell us what he intends to do about the moneys lost by landlords during the Bill 4 moratorium for capital expenditures.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the question. I would say to the critic for the third party that he is aware that the whole issue of capital expenditures in apartment buildings is dealt with in the green paper. He will also remember that on 18 February, when I tabled the green paper in the standing committee on general government, some of the members of the committee criticized me for having some preferred options and some other members criticized me for having any preferred options, that decisions had already been made.

What we have decided is that we spelled out the range of options on capital. We have gone out and sought the opinions of landlord and tenant groups across the province and it is a meaningful set of consultations. In fact, in most of the public hearings we have had there have been more landlords making presentations than there have been tenants. It has been very helpful in determining government policy. I would suggest to the member, if he has any specific suggestions, as a critic, of how he feels we should be dealing with the capital issue, I would be more than willing to listen to him.

To date, all he has talked about is deregulation, elimination of rent controls, and that is not on for this government.

Mr Tilson: My first suggestion is that the minister read his own green paper, because it does not deal with the capital expenditures lost during the Bill 4 moratorium period; it does not even refer to it. So read the green paper. That is the first suggestion.

Last week the Concrete Restoration Association of Ontario announced the Minister of Housing had in his power to send up to 2,000 people, in a variety of trades, back to work in the time of the recession. As the minister is well aware, the unemployment and welfare lines are increasing at an alarming rate. The snow is off the ground, construction can begin, but the workers and their equipment lie idle.

How long will the minister continue to ignore the plight of the workers, and how long is it going to take for him to put them back to work in this province?

Hon Mr Cooke: The argument the critic for the Conservative Party has been using all along is that the only way capital can be spent in this province is if there is a pass-through system. The critic knows as well as I do that under the Liberal rent review system the majority of renovations carried out in this province in apartment buildings were not carried out through the rent control system or the rent review system.

Mr Tilson: How are you going to put people back to work? There are unemployed people in this province.

Hon Mr Cooke: In fact, in any given year the maximum amount of capital that was passed through under Bill 51 was $122 million. Now, even he would agree that more than $122 million has been spent on capital, but many landlords in this province believe the upkeep of their apartments should be out of the rent tenants pay. That capital can still be spent in this province even under Bill 4.

While he continues to hold up Bill 4 and does not allow us to proceed with the temporary legislation, on the other hand tenants are being penalized and do not know what is going on. I would just ask the critic for the third party to please allow us to proceed with Bill 4, so that tenants can be properly protected and the $54 million the tenants will save will happen, but he continues to filibuster on Bill 4. We would like to see it proceed.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Lessard: It is a great pleasure to be able to finally ask my question of the Attorney General with respect to case flow management in the city of Windsor.

As he may be aware, case flow management is a system that was introduced in the city of Windsor and another city in the province by the then Attorney General some time in September. Its purpose was to enable cases to move along more quickly through the civil court system, which is something that nobody could disagree with.

I am advised by lawyers in Essex county that the rules for case flow management are flawed, that they are too complicated and difficult to change and that because of that, additional pre-trials, motions and filings are required. In fact, they are telling me the system is not working very well, and at a meeting last Wednesday passed a motion that goes as follows, "The Essex Law Association forthwith requests the dismantling and discontinuance of the case flow management system in Essex county as soon as practical."

My question to the Attorney General is whether he is prepared to comply with the motion of the Essex Law Association.

Hon Mr Hampton: There is some misunderstanding among members of the bar as to exactly who is advocated and who is in control of the various civil case flow management pilot projects around the province.

For the record, and this applies not only to myself but to the former Attorney General as well, the case flow pilot projects were in fact advocated by members of the bar and by members of the judiciary. They got together and asked if three case flow pilot projects could be attempted in the province. One is now on

schedule in Sault Ste Marie, a somewhat more complicated one in Windsor has been attempted and one is about to get under way in Toronto.

I am aware of the difficulties with the program in Windsor. In my visit to Windsor earlier this year, I asked advocates of the system to consider simplifying their local rules. That is something over which control lies at the local level. I have no control over the pilot projects. We have supported them in terms of computer facilities and additional staff, but if the bar in Windsor wants to change the pilot programs it has going, that is within its control to do. I do not have control over that pilot project.

Mr Lessard: With respect to amending the system or making some changes with respect to the system, it has also been brought to my attention that one of the problems is that the system applies to cases that are from 1985. They are all going through the system right now and that is where some of the backlogs are concerned. Would the Attorney General agree to changes if they were recommended, with respect to removing those retroactive cases from the system or any other changes?

Hon Mr Hampton: I indicated as well when I was in Windsor that the Ministry of the Attorney General would be prepared to meet reasonable requests; for example, for additional computer time or for additional staff.

I say again that we have no control over the rules that are used and we have no control over, for example, the retroactivity of the program that has been instituted in Windsor. That is very much within the control of the local bar and the judiciary in Windsor. If they want to change those rules they can. If they want to ask for additional resources in terms of computer time and computer facilities, we will do everything reasonable we can do to meet those requests.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mrs Fawcett: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

The minister will be aware of the recently announced plant closure of the Cooper Tools-Nicholson File facility in Port Hope, with production being transferred south of the border to the company's plant in Cullman, Alabama.

Nicholson File is a historic part of our community and has been an efficient and competitive company for decades and, I might add, continues to show a profit.

This closure will result in just under 200 people losing their jobs, adding to the growing flood of people laid off due to plant closures since the NDP took power. This is very serious for the people of Port Hope, who were taken completely by surprise, with little or no time for preparation.

Why does the minister think this plant is moving to the USA when it is making money here in Ontario, and what is he going to do to save these jobs?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It is indeed unfortunate that Cooper Tools group, which has been a long-term employer in the town and a corporate citizen here in Ontario, has taken a very unfortunate decision to leave. A consultant of my ministry did meet with the company on 27 March to discuss the situation. We will try to effect a change in decision as best we can, but unfortunately we are not in a position to make those corporate decisions for those companies. We regret it and we wish that it would not happen. Our consultant is trying to see if there is any possible way to alter the circumstance. We join with you in regretting that corporate decision.

Mrs Fawcett: I did not really hear much in the way of solace in that answer or very little comfort for the workers of Cooper Tools.

I remind the minister of something he would probably rather forget: the Agenda for People. I quote: "A jobs protection board would establish whether plant closures are justified." Since his party took power, over 50 plants have closed permanently in Ontario. The toll is mounting daily.

Before the election, the NDP had a lot of ideas, and since then it has had a lot of bluster. Other than fed-bashing, what is this minister doing today to save those 200 jobs in Port Hope and thousands more like them? Is the minister going to do something and honour his party's previous commitment to a jobs protection board, or will he sit idly by playing Dr Do-Nothing and watch the exodus from Ontario of numerous industries?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have indicated already that this is a corporate decision, certainly not of the making of this government or of this province. We have officials of our ministry dealing with the company. If we can effect an alteration to that unfortunate decision, as I said, we will.

I regret quite frankly, though, the comment from the member that this ministry is not doing anything with respect to corporate Ontario and the companies resident therein. I had the pleasure of first meeting the member for Northumberland in a community in her riding, in Cobourg as a matter of fact, where she welcomed me as I announced a very substantial grant for the acceleration of an industrial plant and facility in her riding. I know that fact has probably just temporarily slipped her mind, but she does know of our interest in that and all companies within her riding.

I will close by suggesting that if there is anything we can do for the employees of Cooper Tools, this ministry will use its best efforts to do so.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. I have a letter in my hand here that was sent to the solicitor for the Carleton Board of Education by the Ministry of the Attorney General. I am sure she is aware of it. It indicates that the Ministry of Education will accelerate progress towards the goal of integrating exceptional pupils into local community schools wherever possible, according to parental choice.

Currently the laws states that the IPRCs will be responsible for placing children. The government, which originally acted as a co-defendant with the Carleton Board of Education in a case initiated by the parents of Alexandra Hysert, a 12-year-old Down syndrome child, decided to change its original statement of defence, which supported Bill 82. By the way, this process last week cost us some $71,000 in legal fees.

I would like to know why the minister's government has changed the policy in regard to integrating special students or exceptional students in this province without bringing the long overdue amendments for special education, Bill 82, to the house.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I thank the member for the question. This was a very distressing situation in Ottawa, as the members can imagine. The member is quite right, and the member and the critic from the opposition have expressed numerous times their anxiety for our special education initiatives to come forward. I can assure the members that they are going to do so within this session. We will have a consultation process attached to it. We are committed, as our party has been and as this government continues to be, to the notion of parental choice and to the notion of parental choice within a context which offers integration within a community school wherever possible.

The situation in Ottawa was particularly unfortunate because of positions that had been taken there among the various school boards. It was really important for us as a government to take this action to indicate our commitment to the whole notion of integration of students.

Mrs Cunningham: During the election campaign in response to the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation questionnaire, the Premier stated, "The NDP opposes the Liberals passing the buck to the municipal level." He went on to state, "A New Democratic government would provide 100% funding for appropriate specialist staff." I underline provincial funding. This would ensure that hard-to-serve students have an equal opportunity to reach their potential regardless of the strength of the local municipal taxation base. We know we are probably looking at one-to-one instruction here.

The minister is aware that integrating students is expensive. My question would be: How much will it cost to integrate students across the province, because we have a policy change here, and when will the minister be allocating 100% funding to the local school boards?

Hon Mrs Boyd: This very issue will be part of the consultation we are having. At this particular point I cannot give the member a figure that would say exactly what it would cost because we do not know how many students would be designated or how many parents would choose the integrated route. We do want to have a choice element there and so that would be important.

The other part of the member's question in terms of the downloading is a very important one. It is part of our entire concern about downloading on to municipalities both in terms of responsibility and accountability and in terms of funding. I can assure the member that that issue, particularly with respect to special needs students, will be part of our work in terms of integrating children's services across the province. We do not see all those costs as belonging necessarily in the Education portfolio, and it will be important for us to find a way to integrate those services more effectively within the community.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Drainville: I would like to address a question, if I might, to the Minister of Housing. Last week we had a situation in our riding where two representatives, one a Ted Starr, who represented the Victoria County Tenants' Association, and Michael Lockwood, who came from 155 Lindsay Street South in Lindsay, went down to the ministerial hearings in Oshawa to ask a question about the reality of how the new legislation is going to be formed. They were concerned about the problems they had been having as tenants with those situations.

The question I would like to address to the Housing minister is about the consultation that is taking place. We know the consultation is an important one. Would the minister indicate the extent of the consultation in the province of Ontario and whether that consultation will be reported on in the near future?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Cooke: I can understand why the opposition does not want to hear about the extensive consultation we have had on the permanent rent control system, because the fact is that this is the most extensive consultation that any opposition party has had in many years on a piece of legislation. We have attempted to develop a partnership with landlords and tenants and others in the community to develop this permanent legislation. We went to 20 communities across the province. We had public meetings. We had individual meetings with landlords' groups and tenants' groups.

We even invited the opposition to participate through a standing committee of the Legislature and, Mr Speaker, do you know what the opposition said? They were not interested. This government is interested in consultation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I am so glad I showed up today. What a lively group. Now, I take it that the member for Eglinton had a point of order or privilege.

Ms Poole: Yes, thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Housing just made the statement that it was because of the opposition that the standing committee did not get a chance to look at his long-term legislation. This is not true. This is simply not a true statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We will find out. I intend to listen to alleged points of order and privilege, and I intend to be able to hear them, and I will allow the member for Eglinton to succinctly put what she claims to be her point of order.

Ms Poole: Mr Speaker, I will tell you that the minister has said that the opposition did not want to participate in the process. The minister's idea of participation was to let an opposition critic or the Conservative Housing critic sit on the stage but not to speak and not to comment. That was his idea of participation. They have not made any effort to bring this matter to the standing committee on general government and we, the opposition parties, would have been pleased to take a look at it.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member's bringing to my attention something which she believes to be a point of order. It is not a point of order, but I do appreciate your concern.

Hon Mr Cooke: Mr Speaker, on a point of personal explanation: During question period, in answer to the Conservative critic, I indicated that by holding up Bill 4, $50 million of rent reductions covered by Bill 4 were being held up. I should have said $45 million.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, on the same point of order: As long as you are inviting members of the House to speak on the point of order and as long as you are allowing my friend the Minister of Housing to correct the record, I think it should be pointed out that in this democratic assembly there is a trend developing among government ministers and indeed government members, and that is to accuse those of us who do our work in committee of stalling government legislation.

Interjections.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I have more to --

The Speaker: I have heard sufficient. The point of order was originally raised by the member for Eglinton. If you have new information which she has not brought to my attention, then I would appreciate your succinctly doing so. If however there is no more information, then we can move on with the regular business.

Mr Sorbara: The new information I want to bring forward is precisely the information that I was about to bring forward, and that is a trend by the government to misrepresent what we as parliamentarians do in the committees on which we sit. We are there to deliberate on the bills that the government brings before us.

A few days ago the Premier accused us in question period of stalling on Bill 17, a bill to change support and custody orders enforcement. Let me put a little bit of information before the Legislature on the question of the support and custody orders enforcement bill. In fact, today the Minister of Community and Social Services once again reiterated the allegation that we were holding up some $350 million in support orders.

[Applause]

Mr Sorbara: The members opposite are clapping, including the member for Algoma, the Minister of Natural Resources. I say to the Minister of Northern Development, let's have the Attorney General stand up in this House and tell the people that his own ministry is not planning on proclaiming that bill until 1 January 1992. Who is holding up the SCOE bill?

The Speaker: Would the member for York Centre take his seat, please. What the member raises is not a point of order. What the member raises is something which quite naturally he may wish to consider as the subject material for question period on another occasion. Now, let's proceed with the routine proceedings.

PETITIONS

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have a petition appropriately addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is from residents of the nursing home at Gore Bay, Manitoulin Lodge, and it says:

"We, the undersigned, are most concerned about what we consider to be inadequate provincial funding to Ontario nursing homes. We urge immediate action to correct this problem."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr McLean: "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas, the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas, the current government disputes its self-serving select committee findings, intends to encourage increased used of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that Bill 8 is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of Bill 8; and

"Whereas, the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board.

That is signed by 63 members.

Mr Runciman: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by a number of my constituents imploring the House to repeal the French Language Services Act, Bill 8, at the earliest possible moment.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Jackson: I have a petition to the members of the Legislative Assembly signed by 550 Tridon workers who will lose their jobs on 31 May and states it as follows:

"We the undersigned petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"As victims of a plant closure (Tridon Ltd) we ask the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to bring forth immediately new legislation which will provide increased statutory protection and compensation for the workers of Ontario who are being laid off because of plant closures."

That petition has my signature of support and I submit it to the House.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr Cordiano from the standing committee on social development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 22,

An Act to provide for Certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

GENERAL ELECTIONS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES ÉLECTIONS GÉNÉRALES

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 69,

An Act respecting General Elections.

M. McLean propose la première lecture du projet de loi 69, Loi concernant les élections générales.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr McLean: The purpose of the bill is to establish the timing for general elections. Generally, elections should be between four and five years apart. An election would be held sooner than that only if the government has been defeated in the assembly. The bill would also establish a maximum 60-day period between the date of the writs of election and election day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Consideration of Bill 4,

An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act,

Section 9:

The Second Deputy Chair: Dealing with the member for Eglinton,

section 9 of the bill, subsections 100b(1) and 100b(2) of the act, are there any questions or comments?

Ms Poole: Yes, Mr Chair. I do not think any members of the House, or not very many of them at any rate, were down at the rally this morning that was held outside Queen's Park. There was a large group of renovators, suppliers, tradespeople and small landlords there to protest this government's action on Bill 4, specifically two areas of it: the retroactivity and the lack of provision for capital repairs. These measures were ending up in many, many people losing their jobs, companies closing down, bankruptcies.

I have the comments from one of the people who spoke at that rally this morning. His name is Marty Cash and he is the vice-president of Wind-O-Mart. Some of the members may remember that his name was raised in the House back in the fall. In the first week of Bill 4 he had $5 million worth in cancelled contracts for his window manufacturing company. Mr Cash spoke very eloquently today. He addressed his remarks to the minister.

He said: "You have created an atmosphere of unpredictability which is anti-business, therefore discouraging instead of encouraging small business and entrepreneurs at a time when employment is rising at an alarming rate. You have developed an atmosphere of distrust by implementing retroactive legislation."

That is the point I wish to address right now, the atmosphere of distrust that is out there. In all the times that I have been to landlord and tenant meetings over the last five or six years in this province, I have never seen tempers at such a fever pitch as they are today under Bill 4.

This bill has driven a wedge between any landlords and tenants who ever hoped to have a co-operative attitude.

Despite what the government will imply, many tenants and landlords do want to reach some type of accommodation. They are not all bad landlords, as the NDP is implying, who are out to skewer the tenants at all costs and not listen to what they have to say. But right now that communication between landlords and tenants in this province is becoming increasingly difficult, if not impossible. The lines of communication are being broken daily and the feelings are escalating.

I do hope that the minister will reconsider some of his positions on this bill and try to bring some semblance of sanity back to the housing market. It is not only the instability; it is the trust in government. It is also, as I mentioned, the deterioration in landlord-tenant relations.

In his remarks this morning, Mr Cash went on to say: "Mr Cooke, you must be aware that with your procrastination and with your proposed legislation, all renovation companies will go bankrupt, causing a tidal wave of job losses. Mr Cooke, do you want a businessman such as myself to leave this province? Why would you discourage me from being in business in Ontario and providing jobs and much-needed tax revenue? If you don't act quickly and judiciously by considering small businesses and entrepreneurs, we will be forced to leave this province as economic refugees."

Again, tempers ran very hot at that meeting this morning. I understand they ran to such an extent that they actually burned an effigy of the Minister of Housing. I do not condone such dramatic incidents, but at the same time I understand the frustration and the feeling that there is nothing they can do to halt this government's decision, which many of those people out there today -- in fact all of those people out there today -- felt was unreasonable and very prejudicial to their businesses, their livelihood, their rights as individuals to get through this recession in good shape.

The response of the government time and time again was, "It's not our legislation that's creating this economic difficulty; it's not our legislation that's creating the job losses," but I can tell the members very frankly that many of the job losses these people are undergoing are directly attributable to bill 4. When we had one union representative who came before our committee we asked him the point-blank question: "How many of the job losses in your particular sector in the construction area is due to the fact that we are in a recession?

How much is due to the fact that it is a seasonal occupation so that the middle of winter is the worst time for jobs and that people are laid off quite often at that time of year, and how much is directly attributable to Bill 4?" Their answer, very unequivocally, was that at least 60% of the job losses in the construction industry were directly related to Bill 4, to the retroactivity and to the lack of any provision for capital repairs.

So they have put a stop, an utter halt, to much of that work that would have gone on and that, quite frankly, tenants are going to suffer from because they do not have that work done.

Mr Runciman: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: As a matter of interest, when you asked for questions and responses to the previous speaker, the member rose. I thought there was a rotation in this debate and that we would be next. The member for Essex South was the last speaker. You asked for questions and responses in respect to the member for Essex South and the member stood and now she has gone on beyond five minutes. I am wondering if something has happened in terms of the rotation.

The Chair: The member for Essex South, as you know, is not here. He will possibly have the privilege of addressing the House again when he comes back. In the meantime, I asked if there were any questions or comments, any members who wanted to participate. The member for Eglinton stood up and I recognized her.

Mr Runciman: Mr Chairman, what you normally would say is, "Any other member wishing to participate in this debate?" I do not recall you offering that to the other members of the House.

The Chair: I understand very well what you are experiencing. This is not a debate. It is questions and comments, and this is the way we will proceed.

Ms Poole: Just to answer the honourable member's concern, the Chair did ask for other members who were willing to, or anxious to, participate in the debate, and after waiting at least half a minute to see whether somebody from the other caucuses was going to stand up, I did stand at that time.

I need just one second to get my train of thought, which got somewhat interrupted.

Mr Mahoney: You had better start over again.

Ms Poole: Start over? The member wants a repetition?

Mr Daigeler: It was so good that we would like --

Ms Poole: I have had numerous requests to repeat my former dissertation, but I think some of the members may have missed mine from yesterday as well, so maybe I should repeat that in addition.

The bottom line is that we have lost jobs in this province, we have lost opportunity, we have lost trust in government, we have lost faith in the process that this government is undertaking, yet I do not see any willingness on the part of the NDP to change this.

Do the members know some of the names they were calling the NDP this morning? In fact, I think I will have to insert a different word for one of them because it would obviously be quite unparliamentary. But they called the NDP "no darn good." They said that NDP stood for No Darn Principles. They said things such as the NDP had no guts. All very unkind, unflattering things. They do not think very much of the government's policies.

I have to tell the government, I know that it thinks it is a government of the people, but it should listen to what the people are saying to the government and what they said out there today. These are not any rich fat cats. These were workers, some of them construction workers. They were from the trades, they were renovators. They were small landlords. Some of them were in a fury, some of them were just utterly frustrated and could not cope with it.

These were the real people and they are the real people that the government did not talk about. They are the real people that the government does not talk about, but I can tell the government that as members of this assembly they have a right to your representation as much as any other group.

When I was elected as a member in this Legislative Assembly, it was my understanding that I would act as a representative for all the people, that I would bring their interests forward, that I would act on their concerns, and that I would not just go to one interest group or two interest groups and let them dictate my time. That does not mean you cannot have groups that you support very strongly, particularly if they are disadvantaged and vulnerable groups in society.

But I ask, in the name of fairness and balance, what is there in the government's mandate that has said that NDP members do not have to represent landlords, do not have to represent the workers if they do not happen to like what the government is doing at the time, do not have to represent the investors, do not have to represent the financial sector, do not have to represent the interests of middle-class Ontarians? There is nothing in what we do as members that says that the government should concentrate all its efforts on one particular sector.

Many times in this House I have stood on behalf of tenants to fight for their rights because I have felt that, as a group, there were times when they were disadvantaged, that they were vulnerable and that they needed that support in this Legislature. But I can tell the members that the day that I stand up in this House and represent one sector to the exclusion of all others and say that fairness and balance does not matter any more is the day when I no longer have any pride in myself as a member.

I would say to the government that it does still have an opportunity to rethink not the original premise of its bill, not the fact that it wants to have a pause, as the parliamentary assistant said time and time again in committee, a pause to take a look at long-term legislation -- I have no problem with that -- not the fact it has said that it wants to limit outrageous rent increases -- I do not have a problem with thai anyway; I support it wholeheartedly -- or in its attempts to make sure that flipping -- whatever it is; we have never quite had a definition, but whatever it is -- is stopped.

Those are good things that the government wants to accomplish, but by the same token it does not gut the bill, it does not gut it at all, to make provisions that make it responsible and that make is fair and balanced. I will come back to those words "fair and balanced" time and time again, because the government sets a very dangerous precedent in this House when it adopts and pushes forward with a bill that it knows is causing considerable hardship and is not fair and balanced.

I do not want to belabour the point. The Conservative critic no doubt will have a few more comments. He always prefaces his remarks by saying, "I want to speak for a few minutes," and then as a typical lawyer goes on for several hours. I just had to get my dig in there. But it is okay; I have said before, I am married to a lawyer and have been for 20 years, so I feel compelled to say these things from time to time even in my own household. So with that I will yield the floor to my honourable colleague. I know the Conservatives are quite eager to put in further thoughts they have on the retroactivity of this bill on the record, as our caucus has and will continue to do.

Mr Tilson: I do thank the Liberal opposition critic for her very kind words. I do have a few comments to make with respect to her amendment, which I am supporting, as my party is. We are supporting it in principle, as we did at the hearing. We do not feel that it probably goes far enough, but we are prepared to support it as a matter of principle.

The NDP members sought at that time to defeat it, and hopefully in hearing the recommendations that are being made here and listening to the stories and listening to some of the demonstrations such as today, they will reconsider their position, a position with respect to retroactivity which, in my opinion, after listening to comments such as have been delivered to us by Gardiner, Roberts, who are the solicitors for the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, is unconstitutional.

Of course, I have asked in the committee that the Minister of Housing reveal to us the legal opinion of the Attorney General and the legal opinion on this issue, because there is no question that this organization intends to challenge the legality of what it believes is very illegal legislation. It is discriminatory.

Specifically, the letter we received is quite a lengthy dissertation. It goes on for some 13 pages. It is prepared by a Robert G. Doumani, and members of the committee have referred to it, and I would like just to refer to a couple of sections specifically dealing with subsection 15(1) of the charter, which is one of several arguments that this law firm refers to as this legislation breaching the Constitution.

Subsection 15(1) of the charter states, "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability."

The solicitors point out that the sections of the bill dealing with retroactivity are discriminatory sections that violate this section. They clarify the word, I might add, "retroactive" to be "retrospective," and we discussed that at some length at the hearings. They talked about, of course, the provisions of Bill 4 being retrospective and that they give a different and more onerous rent review outcome to actions taken and expenditures incurred in good faith at a date prior to the enactment of Bill 4.

They cite a number of examples in their letter and state, "These examples show that there are actions which would have been taken and expenditures incurred in many instances before the last provincial election had even been called."

They state specifically that:

"Bill 4 creates two distinctions

"(

a) one between those persons who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline and those who took guideline increases only;

"(

b) another is between those persons who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline for which the effective date of first intended rent increase was on or after 1 October 1990 and those landlords who sought or obtained rent increases greater than guideline for a first effective date before 1 October 1990."

This legal opinion has been made available by the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario to the Ministry of Housing and to the committee and has simply gone unchallenged. The NDP members at the hearing simply received it with blank looks on their faces. The minister says he has a letter which says that what they say is not correct, and we have never seen that letter.

I made an application under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and that ruling of the commissioner is currently under review. I intend to proceed with that because I think the people of this province, before this bill is passed, should know whether this law is constitutional or whether it is not.

The solicitors refer to a Supreme Court of Canada decision made in 1989 in Andrews v Law Society of British Columbia. I am not going to go into that, but after referring to that decision in support of their submissions that this is a discriminatory law, they start to refer to burdensome impacts that Bill 4 has, specifically with respect to a person who on three different occasions "obtained a phase-in order months or years before the election of the present government but has a phase-in certificate with an effective date on or after 1 July 1990 is burdened by the loss of that rent increase found justified under the law at the time the application was made."

Second, "on the strength of the RRRA," which is the current law, "undertook capital improvements many months before this government was elected will not recover the cost of the work if the first effective date of the increase is 1 October 1990 or later."

Finally, where a person "obtained conditional approval for capital expenditures months before this government was elected and on the strength thereof incurred the expenditure and filed an application will not obtain a rent increase if the first effective date in the application is 1 October 1990 or later." Of course, that is the intent of the second portion of the amendment that has been made by the official opposition, and I assume that is exactly one of the reasons why that amendment has been made and why we are supporting it, because we feel that in the other situation it is discriminatory and illegal.

The solicitor states, "Depending on an arbitrarily selected date which, effectively, is at least two months before the election was even called, a person who owns rental property may suffer the catastrophic personal consequences detailed above." Of course, they go on and list some examples where with this retroactive legislation individuals have sustained major losses. Those examples have been given to us in this committee and at the committee of the Legislature that reviewed it around the province, where we had individual after individual who came to us and told us the terrible effect that this discriminatory legislation had on them.

Therefore, the law firm indicates that under those circumstances it believes that there has been a violation of the equality provisions of

section 15 of the charter.

I am sure that the parliamentary assistant has read this opinion. I assume that the parliamentary assistant has discussed it with the government solicitors. My question to the parliamentary assistant is, is there any substance in this opinion after reviewing the opinion of the government?

Ms Harrington: At this time I do not think it would be appropriate for me to give my personal opinion, but I certainly would like to tell the member that the minister has gone on record as saying he believes that will not affect the bill. If the member would like to hear further expert testimony on this, I could arrange to have someone answer his question in more detail.

Mr Tilson: Well, that is the first most encouraging piece of information. We certainly heard at the committee that the Minister of Housing said unequivocally that information was not available. I am glad the government has reconsidered its position. Perhaps I would accept the parliamentary assistant's offer for us to review that information. Perhaps at this present time she could summarize that position so that we could all hear what that is.

Ms Harrington: I said I would get someone if the member was interested.

Mr Tilson: I do not know whether I am being answered or not.

Ms Harrington: I believe I stated quite clearly that if the member wanted detailed answers from our legal people, I would ask them to come forward and do that.

Mr Tilson: I cannot understand why we went through weeks and weeks of committee. I asked this question at the committee, I was refused this information, for whatever reason the minister had on his mind that particular day, and now the parliamentary assistant -- I am asking you as the Chair, because I am a new member and I do not know the procedure -- has informed us that we can hear comments from the solicitor. I, as I am sure members of this committee, would like to hear those comments. Is there a process in this committee that we can have the solicitor come to us and advise us?

The Chair: It is not my responsibility to help you in that case. I think the answer should be very clear and should come from the parliamentary assistant, to clarify the matter. Does the parliamentary assistant wish to reply to what was being said by the member for Dufferin-Peel?

Mr Tilson: I am quite prepared to assist the parliamentary assistant. I will send someone over to her office, if she has no one available, to escort the solicitor here because I think that we would all like to hear what the solicitor had to say on this very important matter. This is the whole crunch of what the opposition to this bill is saying, that it is illegal and discriminatory. Now for the first time -- and I am encouraged by that -- the government is saying, "We will make this information available to you now." I am ready, right now, to hear this information.

Ms Harrington: The minister, at the committee hearings about a month ago, made quite clear his position on this, which is what I stated to the member and what the member originally stated as well, that he believed that this was not a problem, that he had consulted with our people. That position is still there, that we believe that this legislation can go ahead, and we would not be doing this if we did not believe that.

Mr Tilson: I thank the member for that, but I do accept her offer to make this information available to us this afternoon. She has indicated that this information would be available. Hansard will be quite clear on that. She has not denied that she would do that, so I think members of this committee would be quite pleased to receive this information and review it. It is available to us. The parliamentary assistant has said it is available to us. Let's hear it and let's hear it now.

Ms Harrington: I did not say it was directly available to the member. What I said was that I would consult with our legal people if that was the request of this committee.

The position of the minister was quite clear four weeks ago, how he felt about this. If the member wishes at this particular time, if he would like myself and my staff to go back -- if it would make him feel clearer about this -- to consult with the legal people again, what I am saying is that I have not spoken to them just recently about this but the minister did make it quite clear before, but I am willing to go and speak to them again.

Mr Tilson: I have a lot of trouble with this process that is going on right now. There is no question that the member for Niagara Falls made it quite clear that this legal information is available to us right now, that a solicitor could come and perhaps not speak to the House -- I gather that cannot be done -- but certainly can speak through her or she can speak on his behalf as to information that he has available on whether or not this bill violates the Charter of Rights of this country, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act, 1982.

That has been made quite clear by the parliamentary assistant this afternoon. I gather that information is still available and I accept her offer and I hope that information will be made available to us right now. I think it is that important and that everything should stop until this information is available to us, because she said that it is available to us and that she will give it to us.

Ms Harrington: I do not believe that I have the people here to answer this question for the member at this time. I will consult with them and, as soon as possible, bring him back the reply. I could even speak with the minister and verify his position again for the member, but I think he will understand that it is quite clear that the reason this government is proceeding with this is that we believe that there will be no constitutional challenge, that we are quite firm in our belief that we can go ahead with this legislation.

Mr Tilson: The issue of retroactivity is perhaps the most important issue in this entire legislation. We have spoken against it and the members of the official opposition have spoken against it. I am sure that there are other members of my party who wish to make some comments on the retroactive issue of this legislation and to speak in favour of this amendment. I am sure the member for Eglinton has a few more comments with respect to the issue of retroactivity. Obviously this is going to go on for some time.

It cannot take that long for a solicitor to come here and relay his or her comments to the parliamentary assistant. In light of that, we can go on to other aspects of the issue of retroactivity, because we have several things that we can talk about. While we are doing that, I ask the parliamentary assistant to make that information available to us this afternoon.

Ms Harrington: I have just received a note from my legal people.

Mr Tilson: My, how things can fly.

Ms Harrington: I made a request and since they were not sitting here with me, they provided this note.

This probably will jog the member's memory to that afternoon when we discussed this previously. The written opinions were prepared for the minister in contemplation of the litigation and therefore should not be discussed at this time. The word that is underlined here from the legal person is that this is "privileged" information. I would like to thank the legal staff for getting this to me right away. So what is written here is that the opinions were prepared, and we have every confidence in them, but because they are prepared in anticipation of any challenge, they are therefore privileged information.

Mr Tilson: I find this doubletalk unbelievable. I think that is the whole problem with this entire bill, that this government has not properly prepared for this legislation. I mean, we have got interim legislation, we have got green papers, we have got imminent, pending permanent legislation, and none of this has been properly researched -- none of this, the retroactive aspect of this legislation, the consideration of how it is going to affect the unemployment condition of this province, how it is going to result in the lack of investment in this province.

People do not trust this government; our side does not trust this government; I have a feeling the official opposition does not trust this government because of its actions.

Even this afternoon, information was agreed to be given to us, then seconds later there is a little note that is passed in front of the parliamentary assistant and she says "Oh well, I was just kidding. I'm sorry. I'm not going to make that information available; it's privileged."

Those are my comments with respect to the legal aspects of the retroactivity of this amendment, and I will be interested in hearing from other members.

Mr Drainville: I would like to rise and make a few comments about this clause on retroactivity, this amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal Party. I will not go into all the rationale and reasons why we put forth this bill with this retrospective or retroactive part to it. If they wish to do so, any member of this House or any member of the public could read what has gone on in the standing committee. We discussed it at some length.

But in terms of this retroactivity, yesterday the member for Essex South indicated a number of things that were inaccurate in the picture he painted of the standing committee and the work that has been done by all the members on that committee. For instance, he indicated that around the discussions of retroactivity most people who came and spoke wept. Two or three people did, and that was of concern to all of us on the committee. It is not easy to see people who are obviously moved and touched in such a way, to see them weeping.

It is difficult to take that in, and there was solicitude on the part of all the members of the committee to those people, but to paint a picture that somehow everyone who came in was treated in some cavalier fashion and not heard would be totally wrong and erroneous.

Mr Tilson: Some 150 people tried to be heard and were not heard; 150 people and you wouldn't hear them.

The Chair: Order, please.

Mr Drainville: I hear the honourable member across the way saying that people were not heard. In fact, yesterday the member for Essex South again indicated that there were far more people who were not heard than were heard and he said this is the first time in the history of this Legislature. In my discussions with clerks of committees and other people, that is not so at all. There have been many times, on contentious issues, where the ability of the standing committee to deal with such a contentious issue was limited by time, as it always must be in the legislative process.

Again, what are the pictures that are being painted, and who is actually going to listen to these debates and understand the true dynamics of what went on and what the motivations of the various members were? We can hear all these comments being made by the opposition as to the retroactivity and how awful and draconian the government is. The reality is that we as a government were having to move on an issue that is of major importance to the tenants of Ontario, and we did so in a way that we thought we had to in a short-term period of time, putting in a piece of legislation which would bridge us over the establishment of new permanent rent control legislation. So that is what we did.

I am reminded, as I hear the kinds of comments and the statements that are being made by opposition members, of the old adage that a great many people think they are thinking when actually they are only rearranging their own prejudices. When you hear time and time again about the kinds of arguments that are being put forward, you see the truth of that old adage, so I want to bring that up.

Also, in terms of the legality, the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel indicated that this legislation, Bill 4, is illegal. He surely has a right to have a legal opinion. Of all people in the House, I would offer that right to that gentleman. But to say that it is illegal is totally a fabrication on his part. He does not know whether it is illegal. The courts may decide whether it is illegal, but it is not for the honourable member to say that it is illegal. Again, that is a certain, if I might say, misrepresentation of the reality. He cannot say that, and yet he has.

In fact, as we have looked at the many things that have been said lately, we see that time and time again the picture being painted is quite other than the reality we experienced on the committee. So I say that we need to be careful to look at the public record, to hear the things that are being said here and to compare it with what happened in the committee on general government.

I also want to say at this time about the kinds of opinions that we heard from many people. You know, we hear talk all the time about how the government is somehow listening only to the responses of tenants. I know in my own riding that I have had many discussions with landlords, in my office and in other places, about retroactivity and about the difficulties they find with this bill. In fact, it is the role of the member to ensure that he or she has the opportunity to speak with all people on these issues and to receive information that will help him to make a judicious and appropriate decision in terms of Bill 4.

The whole view that somehow the government is responsive only to the needs of tenants has to be taken with a grain of salt. In fact, as we hear the constant outpourings, the reading of letters, the reading of memorandums, basically addressed to the opposition members, not by tenants, most of those things that have been read out, but rather by landlords, it gives one a certain picture, and that picture is that perhaps the opposition members are just as partisan or perhaps, dare I say it, even more partisan than the government is on this particular issue. I must say I am totally unmoved by the litany of woes brought forward by members of the opposite side.

I have to say also that there is no question in my mind that there are times when a responsive government has to establish legislation which is difficult, which does not solve all the problems, but which is going to deal with major problems that have to be addressed. We have done that with Bill 4 and we will continue to do it with other pieces of legislation.

Mrs Sullivan: I am just speaking really in response to the remarks from the member for Dufferin-Peel in his interchange with the parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls. I did not sit on the general government committee, and I was actually quite interested in this exchange, because the question of the retroactivity of this bill and the nature of that retroactivity is of great concern to people in our party.

The member for Dufferin-Peel has indicated there is legal opinion, not only his own but other legal opinion, that indicates the retroactive clause in this bill may in fact violate the charter.

When the parliamentary assistant rose to respond to those comments, my sense, from listening to her, although I do not have the exact words because we do not have Hansard in front of us at this point, was that in fact she appreciated the point of the member, that indeed there may well be challenge to the retroactive nature of this bill.

She also indicated that she could make legal people available -- I assume that means counsel to the ministry -- who could come to discuss this with members. We know in the House that legal people cannot come to the floor of the chamber to discuss these things with members. None the less, we assume, through her second response, that the legal people, counsel to the ministry, would possibly provide her with a response.

When that question was asked by the member for Dufferin-Peel, the parliamentary assistant responded that the information was privileged.

Frankly, the parliamentary assistant herself noted that indeed there might be doubt about the question of whether there was a violation of the charter. No information has come before the House since to assure the members that the retroactive nature of this bill does not violate the charter.

We have to understand, of course, that the Charter of Rights was to protect people, was introduced in 1982 as a part of our Constitution to protect the rights of people throughout our country.

I expect the parliamentary assistant to come clean with other legislators here. I insist, and I think other members of the opposition parties will agree with me, that she must put on the table the legal opinion that counsel have prepared to ensure that this bill does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the people of this province.

The Chair: Parliamentary assistant, do you wish to reply? The member for Leeds-Grenville.

Mr Runciman: Thank you, Mr Chairman, and at the outset I want to apologize to you for taking you to task earlier when I suggested that you should have been calling for other members. I was reminded that when we are in committee you are following some rigid requirements in respect to the wording you have to use in questions and comments, and indeed I apologize for chastising you for not doing so.

I want to say at the outset that it is interesting. We talk about the constitutionality of this particular matter of retroactivity, and we have the member for Victoria-Haliburton chastising us and then the parliamentary assistant furiously backpedalling on a commitment she made to our member in respect to making the legal opinions available and indicating that because there is the possibility of litigation, this material is now, based on information she received during this discussion, deemed to be confidential.

I recall going through the debates on Bill 68 and the member for Welland-Thorold and the NDP member serving on that committee being very adamant indeed about the fact that there were legal opinions within government, the Liberal government of the day, in respect to the possibility of challenges to Bill 68, the auto insurance legislation. The member for Welland-Thorold and others were challenging the government representatives on a daily basis to make those opinions available, that it was incumbent upon the government to ensure that all members of this Legislature were as well informed as they could possibly be in respect to this important piece of legislation.

Now that the NDP has formed the government of this province, we are getting the same sort of words being mouthed by the NDP as were mouthed by the Liberal government of the day. I find that certainly disturbing, and I would suggest that it should be disturbing to the people of Ontario generally in respect to the attitude being adopted by the government.

I have a great deal of difficulty, as indeed my party, our critic and, I gather, members of the official opposition do, with respect to the retroactivity provisions of the legislation.

I do not think there is any question about them being draconian, and I think that it is a reflection really, even though we have expressed concern and others have expressed concern about the impact this is going to have on landlords across this province, of the message it sends out to a host of interests, not only in Ontario and across Canada but I would suggest to the investment community worldwide, when they take a look at the initiatives of this government, the kind of heavy-handed approach to dealing with primarily small business people, people who are in the landlord business, if you will, in this province, and the attitude it has adopted that, "We don't care about you guys."

We had a speech given by the Minister of Housing some time ago, where he was dealing with a landlord group, a development group, and he said: "Look, I don't care what you guys say. We didn't get along, you're not going to support us, you're never going to support us, so I'm going to forge ahead with whatever I want to do and whatever this socialist government wants to do in this province, despite what you may say, despite your protestations. I don't care if you think they have merit. You guys can yell all you want, all you wish to, but you can bet your bottom dollar that we're not going to listen." And indeed that is what has happened.

We have the member for Victoria-Haliburton suggesting, "Well, we heard from 150-odd witnesses who appeared before the committee." They may have heard, but they certainly were not listening. I guess the problem that all of us have, and certainly I suspect the majority of Ontarians have, is that we are dealing with ideologues here, and the Minister of Housing is one of the strongest ideologues in the current government, and there is no flexibility whatsoever. He is very rigid in his approach to matters such as this, and we are all going to pay a very heavy price indeed.

A number of years ago I was a landlord for a brief period of time. I owned a 12-unit apartment building, and I want to say that after having that experience for a couple of years, I would not want to be a landlord again in this province. There is a host of problems that you have to confront on a daily basis with tenants. The Landlord and Tenant Act is so heavily weighted in favour of tenants that there is simply very little, if any, encouragement left in this province for anyone -- any business, any individual, any family -- to invest in rental accommodation. It is simply a very negative thing to do if you have some investment dollars.

What this government is intending to do is make it even less attractive, and this retroactivity provision is another very clear message to anyone contemplating investment in this area of the economy, "Back off, back off, back off." The Ontario government is currently the largest landlord in North America, and it wants to grow even larger. They want to discourage any apparently private sector investment in this part of our economy.

I am very concerned about this initiative, and I know that it is a politically dicey issue. It is a tough one for all of us who have concerns about rent controls or impact on housing, the availability of rental accommodation in this province. I know I did a straw poll, if you will, in my own riding a number of years ago, and I do not have a lot of tenants in my riding, but there was strong support for the concept of rent controls. That is a tough one for those of us who have closely witnessed the impact in this province, how we get the message out that what we really need in this province is a system of shelter allowances.

We have to get away from rent control and the concept in Toronto -- I know this, Mr Chairman, and I am sure you have experienced it yourself -- where people earning six-figure incomes are living in rent-controlled accommodation while we have people lining up for food banks in this province. We have people who cannot find appropriate shelter, and we have people earning $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000 a year living in rent-controlled accommodation. People earning $25,000 or $30,000 a year are subsidizing people earning hundreds of thousands of dollars in this province.

I ask members, is that fair? It is a message that all of us who have grave concerns about rent control and its impact on this province are having difficulty selling. We have not been able to get that message out there, but we certainly have to make every attempt to do so.

Another element of this, I think in the last fiscal year, is that we spent somewhere in the neighbourhood of $41 million in taxpayers' dollars to administer rent control or rent review in this province, whichever terminology you wish to use. I must say again, when members take a look at that $41 million in taxpayers' dollars being expended to continue this heavy-handed approach to provision of rental housing in this province, they should just think what those dollars could be used for, given the tough economic times we are facing.

In question period today we talked about food banks and the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services has said: "We can't meet our commitments. We can't eradicate food banks in this wealthy province. We have to live with them." At the same time, they are pouring at least $41 million of taxpayers' money down the toilet, flushing it down the toilet on an annual basis while people are going hungry in this province.

I would like to hear the parliamentary assistant and I would like to hear the Minister of Housing stand up in