Hansard Transcript 1987-Jan-19 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Shymko: Today black communities throughout North America are celebrating a commemorative holiday, namely, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Communities throughout Ontario are involved in various activities for this special commemoration. I introduced last week a private member's bill entitled An Act to proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

I would remind the honourable members that the co-citizens of Martin Luther King Jr., slain for the cause of human and civil rights, on August 2, 1983, passed a bill to commemorate the memory of Martin Luther King Jr.

Senator Kennedy said, "What we need, what this bill gives us, is a chance to manifest for our whole country its love and wisdom and compassion towards one another." Congress Speaker Tip O'Neill said: "Martin Luther King Jr. changed American society. He changed it, not by force of arms, but by a moral force." Congressman Jack Kemp, referring to his governing party, said, "If we turn our backs, we are not going to be the party of human dignity we want to be known for."

I ask my colleagues and the House leaders, let us pass this bill today with unanimous consent.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Breaugh: Yesterday morning at the Canadian Automobile Workers' hall in Oshawa, approximately 400 people gathered to express support for the people at Cadbury Schweppes who are losing their jobs because of a plant closure. Representatives of Newcastle, Whitby, Oshawa, Durham region, the Canadian Automobile Workers, the Oshawa and District Labour Council and a number of other trade unions in the area expressed their support.

I invite the government today to join with all of us in the whole region of Durham who are expressing our dismay at the Neilson company's takeover of the Cadbury Schweppes plant and its announced intention to close a modern, productive facility. There is no reason any of us can see at any level for this corporate takeover, except to buy out their competition.

Many of us have begun the process of appealing to the Canadian Competition Tribunal. I invite the government today to join with us in the Durham region in protesting the closure of that plant facility and in trying to protect those jobs.

I want to read briefly from the telegram that was sent from Bob Nickerson, national secretary-treasurer of the Canadian Automobile Workers:

"The only reason that the new owners are buying Cadbury is to increase their market share by eliminating a competitor. Time and again we are seeing companies buy, take over or merge other companies, not in the interests of creating jobs, increasing research and development or expanding products but in the interests of maximizing profits or increasing their market power in a given industry."

RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS

Mr. G. I. Miller: I want to take this opportunity today to acknowledge the contribution made by two outstanding citizens of the town of Simcoe, Colonel Douglas Stalker and John Malo. They were honoured recently with the presentation of the Award of Merit by the mayor, Jim Earl.

Colonel Stalker, a lifelong resident of Simcoe, has served his community for the past 62 years in many capacities. He was the Norfolk-Elgin returning officer in 1925. Colonel Stalker has fought in both world wars, commanding the 45th Field Regiment from 1941 to 1945.

John Malo, a tobacco farmer and three-time world champion tobacco grower, has served the town of Simcoe in various capacities. He was president of the Norfolk County Fair and president of the Norfolk Association for the Mentally Retarded. He served with the Eva Brook Donly Museum and helped with many fund-raising events, particularly within the Norfolk General Hospital.

Time does not permit me to do proper justice to these two outstanding individuals. They are leaders by example and, in my opinion, worthy of our heartiest congratulations.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: More than a year ago, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) announced that under his leadership the province would be taking a new direction in housing. He told us he would be bringing certainty back into all elements of the housing market.

The people of Burlington today can tell the minister he has succeeded in bringing certainty into the housing market beyond their wildest nightmares, because today it is certain that one cannot find a single vacant apartment in Burlington. The minister's new direction in housing has taken Burlington's vacancy rate down to zero. The latest Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. report on vacancy rates, reported Wednesday in the Burlington Spectator, says it all:

"For the first time in its history, the city's apartment vacancy rate hit zero at the time of the CMHC survey. None of the city's apartments were available for rent on the day of the survey."

I have risen repeatedly in this Legislature to warn the minister that there was a genuine housing crisis in Burlington. I have written the minister, and a delegation from Burlington joined me at Queen's Park to meet with the minister. We have had to do this because, outside of one Renterprise proposal, not a single application has been approved for development in Burlington. As the housing analyst for CMHC said: "There is not an awful lot to say. It couldn't be any worse."

I will send the minister a copy of this article and hope he will keep it with him when he is discussing applications for Project 3000, when he is reviewing the new allocations for nonprofit housing and when he is looking at Renterprise allocations. We cannot live in all the paper houses announced over the past year and a half. We need rental housing in Burlington, and we needed it months ago.

RENT REVIEW

Mr. Reville: Here comes William Grenier in the Saturday Star, thinking out loud. Mr. Grenier is an efficient man. He runs the Pagebrook Group, he runs the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, he runs the rent review division of the Ministry of Housing and he still finds time to run a cheering section for the Premier (Mr. Peterson).

"David Peterson," he speculates, "is the one politician who just might have the guts to do it." What will he do? He will phase out rent controls, of course. How will he do it? I quote the Saturday Star: "Premier Peterson, who is enjoying unprecedented popularity, calls an election soon, wins a majority and then returns to Queen's Park without any need for a deal with the NDP."

Mr. Grenier knows how Liberals do things. The Premier, according to our landlord-cum-prophet, establishes an all-party group to study how to phase out rent controls and phase in shelter allowance. Could it be true?

Mr. Grenier got Progressive Conservatives over to a meeting of the Fair Rental Policy folks, and the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) said breezily that he favoured an end to rent control. Mind you, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick might be a bit piqued because, after he sang for his supper, Mr. Grenier gave all the bouquets to the Premier. I want Mr. Grenier to know that the New Democratic Party is not coming to dinner. We do not favour an end to rent control and we too wonder whether the Premier has the guts to do it.

1340

ONTARIO FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. McGuigan: The oldest agricultural organization in Ontario is the Ontario Fruit and Vegetable Growers' Association. This association is holding its annual convention at the Westin Hotel in Toronto on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week. It is the 128th year of the association's existence.

The association has earned the reputation of working hard to advance horticultural science in Ontario and to represent the business interests of the fruit, vegetable and flower producers of the province. The association joins with associations from other provinces in Canada as a member of the Canadian Horticultural Council.

The association has always fought for adequate tariff protection against most of the United States produce dumped into the Ontario market at the end of the US production season, which quite often coincides with the beginning of our production season. During the last round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which concluded in 1977, the Tokyo round, seasonal protection was negotiated. That breathed life back into the industry. During our short production season, effective rates were secured in exchange for zero tariff during our off-season. The association is naturally very concerned about the outcome of the so-called free trade discussions that are currently taking place. Any diminution of the present tariff levels will likely prove disastrous to the industry.

The association works with the Ontario government to secure laws to govern the grading of both domestic and imported produce through its affiliation with the Canadian Horticultural Council.

HUMAN RIGHTS

Mr. Davis: Freedom is a right that must constantly be defended. All of us in this Legislature take pride in Ontario's record as a leader in defending individual rights and in fighting discrimination.

Scenes such as the ones we saw on the weekend television, where freedom marchers in a community in Georgia were attacked because of the colour of their skin, are unthinkable in Ontario. Those scenes are unthinkable because Ontario has enjoyed courageous leadership in human rights. We have had leaders who were willing to make the tough decisions.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

Hon. Ms. Munro: I have just come from the opening ceremonies of Martinsday, an all-day event at Harbourfront. It is a day of commemoration of the life and work of Martin Luther King Jr. I was there representing the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government of Ontario.

As we all know, Martin Luther King Jr. was a very special human being. His thinking was universal. His beliefs, actions and words were so powerful that they sliced through all sections of society. They affected people everywhere regardless of race, religion or socioeconomic standing.

Without a doubt, Martin Luther King Jr.'s devotion to human rights changed the world. As I said at the event, I think he would approve of the way we have done things in Ontario. He would see problems, but by and large, we have come a long way towards reaching his vision for society.

January 15 would have been Martin Luther King Jr.'s 58th birthday had his life not ended so tragically and so early. Taking time to remember such a great man and to take stock of where we are now in relation to his dream is very worth while. As the minister responsible for multiculturalism in Ontario, I take this opportunity to invite my colleagues in the House to renew their commitment to strive towards attaining a totally just and harmonious multicultural Ontario. Together, I know we can make Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream a reality.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I wish to update the members of this Legislature on our continuing efforts to resolve the immediate automobile insurance problems faced by many consumers.

As members may know, approximately 1.3 per cent of private passenger automobile insurance policies are written through the Facility Association. The Facility Association was established by the Compulsory Automobile Insurance Act to provide automobile insurance for otherwise uninsurable risks. Traditionally, the Facility Association has been used by drivers who have a record of Highway Traffic Act or driving-related Criminal Code convictions.

In recent years, with the reduction in overall insurance capacity, a number of drivers have been referred to the Facility Association who properly should have been insured by the private market. In addition, many of these drivers are unaware that they are in the Facility Association, where the highest premiums are charged.

For many months, the office of the superintendent of insurance has had numerous discussions with the Facility Association, insurance companies and insurance brokers regarding these matters.

I wish to outline steps this government has taken in conjunction with these groups for the purposes of reducing the rates to drivers who use the Facility Association and reducing the number of drivers who are required to utilize the Facility Association.

They are as follows:

Insurance brokers have agreed to a cap on their commissions at the level of $150. Previously, brokers' commissions were based on a flat percentage, which in some cases could have been in excess of $1,000.

Many of the drivers now in the Facility have been referred there because of ineffective brokering by their agents. In future, an agent cannot represent the Facility Association exclusively, but must represent at least one other insurance company. Good rates are available in the marketplace but they can only be found by effective brokering. Also, in future all drivers must be informed that they are in the Facility Association so that if they are dissatisfied they have the option of brokering elsewhere. This information will be displayed on the front of all policies.

The members of the Facility Association have agreed to an incentive program that will increase the levy on those insurance companies that rely excessively on the Facility Association to handle hard-to-insure risks. This will encourage insurance companies to keep many of these risks, especially young drivers with good records, in the private market at substantially lower premium costs.

Finally, last November, the Facility Association agreed to withdraw its application for premium rate increases that averaged in excess of 20 per cent. As a result, there will be no change in Facility Association premium rates. The Facility Association continues to operate at a loss and is subsidized by individual insurance companies.

These changes will result in overall significant reductions in the premium rates charged by the Facility Association and the number of drivers who are referred to that association.

SOIL CONSERVATION

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As the members know, soil conservation is a matter of growing importance in the province and a priority issue at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The members may remember that I have spoken of the ravages of soil erosion in Ontario costing us about $70 million a year in lost agricultural productivity. We have assigned more of our resources at the ministry to the task of encouraging greater farmer participation in soil conservation practices to curb this erosion.

I am therefore pleased to inform the members of two new programs in this area. The Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program, or OSCEPAP for short, has been improved to encourage farmers to build more erosion control and manure storage facilities. The new four-year, $22-million program, to be known as OSCEPAP II, is effective from last April. It offers farmers increased grants to cover a major portion of the costs on a large number of soil erosion and pollution control devices.

Second, the Ministry of the Environment is enhancing OSCEPAP II by a further $4 million over four years to reduce runoff of farm animal pollution into rural streams, rivers and lakes in designated areas of the province. I am very grateful that my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) is helping us in this effort. His ministry's assistance to this program will be of great benefit to the producers of this province.

With the enrichments from both parts of this new program, up to $12,500, or 40 per cent, of the total cost of manure storage and associated structures will now be covered. In addition, grants for erosion control devices and water quality improvement will pay a maximum 75 per cent or $14,500.

Improved OSCEPAP assistance applies to a variety of added items under the program such as trenches for milkhouse washwater waste, pesticide handling and protective tree planting and grass cover.

1350

OSCEPAP II is available to all farmers in Ontario. In southwestern Ontario, it is part of the federal-provincial soil and water environmental enhancement program, or SWEEP, announced last year to improve soil and water quality in that area.

We can look forward to widespread benefits under the new Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection program with the added enhancement from the Ministry of the Environment.

OSCEPAP II will help to control soil erosion, maintain crop productivity and protect our water resources. These improvements will make for a more productive agricultural sector and cleaner water habitat in the province.

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Ashe: I have a brief response to the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) regarding the Facility Association. First, when credit is due, we always want to give it from this side. I congratulate the minister, particularly on the four points that were made. However -- and he knew this was coming - I find suspect the reference to approximately 1.3 per cent of the private passenger automobile insurance policies that supposedly are currently written through the association.

I hope that he feels confident in his own mind that that is a current number, because I think he will find -- and he makes reference to it, frankly -- that the numbers that have been put through the Facility Association in the past number of years have grown in leaps and bounds. Judging from the kinds of contacts that I am sure we all get as members through our constituency offices, there are more and more people who are concerned. I find it very difficult to comprehend that it is only 1.3 per cent.

If there is one general overall criticism, it is the fact that it took so long to get this far. If members will recall, we had the same issue on the general liability question that we raised about a year or so before this government did anything about it. All I can say on this is that it is better late than never.

SOIL CONSERVATION

Mr. Stevenson: The expansion of the Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection assistance program is welcomed. That was a program that our previous government started. It was a plan to which we had planned to increase the funding. We mentioned in a number of our releases that it needed some expansion in the light of some of the situations that farmers are experiencing today.

What commitment does the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) have to erosion control and cleanup of our waters? A specific example is the situation in Lake Simcoe where agricultural runoff is now the leading source of phosphorus in that lake. The strategy committee for Lake Simcoe gave its recommendations to the minister in October 1985. It is now some 16 months later, and there is still no submission to cabinet.

The minister who is in charge, the Minister of the Environment, is Vice-Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) is on that committee. They head the two lead ministries working on Lake Simcoe and, after that length of time, one would think they would at least have a submission to cabinet. If they do not believe it is a priority, they could at least hide it by bringing forward a submission and then dumping on it once they get it to cabinet. When there has not been even a word in more than 16 months, I wonder what priority this government, other than the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, has on erosion, erosion control and the health of our lakes and many of our most prominent natural resources.

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

Mr. Shymko: I welcome the remarks of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro) on Martinsday. She invited all of us members to renew our commitment to strive towards obtaining a totally just and harmonious multicultural society on this day.

There is no better way to show this renewal and this commitment than by inviting the minister herself, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the House leader and all of us to show this commitment in a concrete way by unanimously passing a bill to declare a commemorative public holiday.

If we are to make Martin Luther King Jr. Day a reality, as the minister says, we will be much closer to that reality by making such a unanimous decision today. Let Ontario continue to provide leadership towards the elimination of hatred, bigotry, inequities and injustices, as we have in the past and of which we are so proud, as the minister said. This would be a concrete way. Just as we respect Martin Luther King Jr. not for his words but for his deeds, let us be respected not for empty phrases but for our deeds. I appeal to the minister and to all our House leaders to proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day in Ontario in a definite, concrete way.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: "I have a dream." Those words in that magical speech have lived with most members of this House through the many years since the death of Martin Luther King Jr. Every time we watch a newscast from South Africa, or this Sunday stories from the southern United States, and understand that institutionalized racism is still rampant in this world, or that from time to time even the more insidious and unseemly kinds of racism in our society show themselves, in jokes and in other fashions that are inappropriate, we realize how important his message is.

I am very pleased the minister has recognized Martin Luther King Jr. Day. I approached her a number of months ago to provide some financial support to the celebration today, and I am glad that money has come through. The links between our black community and those in the US are deep and profound and go all the way back to the days of the underground railroad.

It is very important for us to recognize the importance of that day in the US, but in contrast to the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), I suggest that, rather than making it a holiday in this province, there are many practical, down-to-earth things we can do to make the lives of the members of our black community much easier in this society -- to make it easier for its young people to get jobs and to make it easier to help some who have come here with problems of illiteracy overcome those problems -- than to name a day in memory of Martin Luther King Jr. I suggest he would prefer concrete action as well.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Swart: I would like to reply to the statement by the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter). First, in summary of that statement, it is simply an admission that many people have been forced to go to the Facility Association who should not have had to go. That is a massive condemnation of his ministry and the insurance companies, because they are the ones that set up and operate the Facility Association.

Also, it is simply not true that, to quote the minister, "Good rates are available in the marketplace for hard-to-insure drivers." They are not. Perhaps he thinks a $2,000 insurance rate is a good rate. I want him to know the motorists of this province do not think that is the case. This is nothing more than a Band-Aid approach. He says it will help those hard-to-insure good young drivers. It may decrease the cost to good young drivers so that they only have to pay three times as much as the good older drivers, instead of four times as much.

Why does the minister not use the power he has to prevent anyone from being forced to go to the Facility Association and pay those kinds of rates unless they are guilty of bad driving? He can set up a schedule. It would have to be proven that they were guilty of bad driving. There is a simple way. Why does the minister not pass legislation to relate premiums to driving records and to nothing else, so that only people who are proven to be bad drivers have to pay those extra rates?

The insurance companies, as the minister well knows and as has now been confirmed, have record profits. The casualty and property insurers in Canada have made more money in the first nine months of 1986 than they did in any whole year in their history before. If the minister were concerned about the motorists of this province instead of the insurance companies, he would pass legislation to force them to charge the same rate for all good drivers, regardless of age.

1400

SOIL CONSERVATION

Mr. Hayes: I wish to respond to the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) dealing with the Ontario soil conservation and environmental protection program. I welcome this announcement and I am sure the farmers across this province will also welcome it. Soil erosion in the rural areas has been a serious problem for a long, long time. Not only has it taken away some of the soil from the farm industry, but it also affects the environment and the quality of our water, which we are very concerned about. I hope this program becomes successful.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. Andrewes: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can the minister update us on the commitments his ministry and his government have made for the support of education and support programs to curb the spread of the acquired immune deficiency syndrome virus?

Hon. Mr. Elston: We have done several things during the past several months with respect to the AIDS virus. The information that is available to the public has been greatly enhanced by the work of a group called the Ontario Public Education Panel on AIDS, about which an announcement was made in this House some time ago, and by the assistance of the Advisory Committee on AIDS, which is a technical advisory group that not only assists me directly but also helps in developing information for the purposes of assisting the development of worksheets, videos and other information as well as in setting up a speakers' bureau to assist any public body in receiving appropriate and timely information on the AIDS virus.

In addition to that, we have received contacts from several community organizations, and we have a very sound financial working relationship now, as I understand it, with the AIDS Committee of Toronto. I am looking at the opportunities that exist with respect to any communities that have formed similar types of organizations.

Mr. Andrewes: I remind the minister that ACT is one of eight groups, as I understand it, that are now looking for funding from his ministry to carry on support and information programs.

I remind the minister that in Britain, where the incidence of AIDS per capita is one quarter of what it is in Canada, they have committed $40 million to a campaign. The disease is spreading at an alarming rate. There is no known cure. Education and support are the one positive direction the minister can go in to curb the spread of this virus. Does he not think his commitment pales in the light of what is going on in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to what is going on in this jurisdiction, we have done quite well indeed. In fact, our information packages, which have been sent to the federal government as well as to the other provinces and territories in Canada, have been well accepted as very vital and leading information packages in the nation of Canada.

With respect to what the member indicated earlier about there being eight community organizations, I am very well aware of them. I just indicated that ACT was the first one with which we had developed financial links. There are other opportunities, of course, to pursue contacts with community-based groups for providing educational material.

With respect to the member's comparison of Ontario with the nation of Britain, I commend to his attention the fact that the Honourable Jake Epp has indicated he is quite concerned about this item as well. There is every indication that the national government should take a leading role across Canada, as did the central government in Britain. I would like it to provide an overall program of financial support that would assist us in being even more aggressive in providing information to the public. That being the case, any increased work on its part in terms of financial commitment would run --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary.

Mr. Andrewes: I did not quite hear the end of the minister's response, Mr. Speaker, but I assume it was going to be helpful to me in posing my supplementary.

The federal government has committed 10 per cent or about $700,000 towards a $7-million program for AIDS education. Out of a $10-billion budget, this government is currently funding something in excess of $200,000 to the AIDS Committee of Toronto for AIDS education. There are 743 cases of AIDS in Canada; 284 of those cases are in Ontario. Of those, 350 victims are alive, and 142 of those living victims are in Ontario. As of October 15, 1986, 198 AIDS cases are known in Toronto alone, and 91 of those victims are alive.

A recent report of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council called for increased expenditures of up to $3 million on education. The cases of AIDS are doubling nearly every month.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Andrewes: Where is the government's sense of commitment to public health in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman would not want to confuse items. We do have a $10-billion budget here, but not all of that is associated with AIDS. That gives us all our budget. The member would not want to compare a $200,000 expenditure to the entire budget of the province, when we have a commitment of about $5 billion of that to hospitals and other supervised services for people who are ill. We have a financial commitment to home care, which provides services to people who are ill. We have a financial commitment to the public health units, which provide educational materials and which have close contact with educating the people in local areas. There are a lot of areas in which there are indirect commitments of funding to those patients who may have contracted AIDS. We have an indirect allocation of funds through the public health units, from which comes a great deal of information as well.

The $200,000 is one item to one community organization. It indicates a very high level of commitment from this government. In fact, it is a much higher level of commitment than that sustained by the federal government to the same organization.

As well, we continue to put money into AIDS research. We have also continued to put money into OPEPA to provide us with more information. I can tell the honourable gentleman that our commitment is not just $200,000, as he would have liked the public to believe. In fact, we are doing a very good job of putting public education and information in front of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It is the 11th hour on the control order on Kimberly-Clark, and the minister has been ineffective in dealing with that problem. What is the Premier (Mr. Peterson) now telling the minister to do? What action is he telling him to take against Kimberly-Clark?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member is aware, this matter has been under discussion for some time. Officials of the Ministry of the Environment have been in discussion with people in Terrace Bay, representatives of both the company and the community. A number of matters have been the subject of discussion as it relates to the control order. We want to ensure that the control order is in place and that it is a very effective one. At the same time, we want to ensure that it is capable of being implemented and that it is going to reach the goals that the Ministry of the Environment desires.

Mr. Stevenson: On many occasions, the minister has stood in this House and pompously demanded that the American Treasury start paying for part of the cleanup in the United States. To clean up acid rain here in Ontario he has promised an environmental superfund. He has the $1 billion in excess revenue coming into his treasury this year. Why has he not come forward with the same type of funding to stop Kimberly-Clark from dumping acid and other toxic chemicals into Lake Superior?

1410

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Since the member makes reference to the acid rain program, he will be aware of the assistance program the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial government, has available with regard to the implementation of the acid rain program. That was announced some time ago by the federal and provincial governments.

The member may recall that I was in Ottawa meeting with the federal minister in regard to that. There was an agreement that a substantial sum of money would be available if the one sintering plant and two smelters that are being regulated could prove to the federal and provincial governments that the money was indeed required. That could be part of this program to reduce the acid rain emissions of the four major polluters by 66 per cent or 67 per cent by 1994.

As always in these matters, we take everything into consideration and all options are being looked at.

Mr. Stevenson: That response had absolutely nothing to do with Kimberly-Clark. The minister is very well known for his verbal spills in this House. I have here one of the very good products made by Kimberly-Clark, but I would not hazard a guess on which part of the minister's anatomy he should put it.

We estimate that the Ontario government makes about $3 million a year from the sale of Huggies diapers alone. That is not to say anything about facial tissues or the many other good products Kimberly-Clark makes. Why has the minister not put some of this money into financial assistance for this company to solve this very serious environmental and social problem?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As a defender of the free enterprise system --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Response?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am trying to respond, but my friend will not let me. The member for Cochrane North (Mr. Fontaine) was interjecting.

The member opposite is a member of a party that believes in the free enterprise system. He would want to ensure, if at all possible, that the costs of applying environmental controls are borne by those who are in business in the province. He would know that, on an almost weekly basis, the Minister of the Environment and the government are faced with people who say they are unable to provide their own funds to meet their environmental obligations. In the overwhelming number of cases, that is so.

We want to be assured that there is a genuine case of need. As I indicated to my friend the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), we are evaluating all options and have been for some time in this regard.

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Health. It is on the same issue raised by the Conservative critic for health issues. We appreciate the fact that the minister finally came through over the holidays with additional funding for the AIDS Committee of Toronto after that group had to go public and almost had to close its doors a few months ago because of lack of appropriate funding from this government. We appreciate that the government finally saw the light at the last minute and came through to fund the group.

Will the minister take the next appropriate step and fund Casey House, which is a proposal for a hospice in Toronto that would provide community-based services and should be funded by the ministry on the same basis as hospitals are funded in this province, on a two-thirds/one-third basis for capital? Is the minister prepared to announce that funding today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It would be reasonable for the honourable gentleman to recognize that we have had a long association with the AIDS Committee of Toronto. One of the reasons for the need for extra funding was the fact that federal government funding was not forthcoming. We had to review their budget on the basis of submissions that required much more detail than we had originally received.

There were some difficulties as well evidenced in those analyses by indications that there had been some additional staff, which we had not seen in the original application. We had a lot of work to do. The member's version of the manner in which the funding was provided is not completely the way in which it occurred. We have become aware recently of the hospice proposal. It has become formal to our ministry. We are examining it. However, I am not in a position at this time to indicate that we will be funding it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Is the minister aware that this group has a very good proposal philosophically as well as the type of care? Economically, it is a terrific proposal, because it is cheaper to provide service in a hospice than in a hospital. Is the minister prepared to say that he will consider this proposal on the basis of hospital funding, in other words, the two-thirds, one-third funding proposal, as capital is provided in the hospital sector? Is he prepared to look at it on that basis?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not prepared to examine it from any particular point of view. We are examining the proposal as it has been presented to us. We will examine it from that standpoint. I can tell the member that with respect to capital funding for hospital purposes, we already have a very ambitious $650-million program, which I am analysing now, with respect to the addition of chronic and acute care beds. That capital funding program now is in detail and at an ongoing stage. I am not prepared to include the hospice program in that capital plan.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the minister is not prepared to make a statement today on the hospice, is he prepared to indicate what his plan will be with respect to the funding of the other AIDS committees throughout Ontario? This problem started at the beginning of the 1980s. It is now 1987. The only thing of any substance at all that this ministry has done has been to fund ACT. That is a pretty weak-kneed approach to a major public health issue in the entire province.

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member is not correct as to the material he provides to the public of this province. ACT is one particular community organization that we have sponsored. We have provided the Ontario Public Education Panel on AIDS and it has provided very good material. The member shakes his head, but he must know the membership of that panel includes representatives from ACT. Included as well with the OPEPA group is the co-ordinating group with respect to technical information of the advisory committee, which also includes representatives.

We have not only provided information from that source and funding for those people to do the information required by the public, but we have also provided material or at least financial support for people who are doing research on this problem in the province.

In addition to that, we have provided AIDS sufferers in this province with support either in hospitals or through home care programs, and we are looking at ways to assist those people as they progress in need for treatment of their disease. For the gentleman to say that we have only funded ACT is not reflected in the facts.

TRANSPORTATION OF TRITIUM

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment about the transportation of tritium.

An hon. member: Oh, oh.

Mrs. Grier: Yes, I did not think he would be ready for that one, but that is what I would like to ask him about first today.

Last December, I asked the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) for his opinion as to whether the risk involved in moving tritium around the province justified Ontario Hydro's refusal to build tritium removal plants at Bruce and Pickering. Can the Minister of the Environment tell us whether he agrees with Hydro's position that it is appropriate to move this very dangerous material around the highways of the province and through Metropolitan Toronto?

1420

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the honourable member will be aware, in dealing with the federal authority which had specific responsibility for radioactive waste, Ontario Hydro made certain undertakings to satisfy that authority there was indeed not a major problem to be encountered in this regard. However, it is my understanding from reports I read in the press today that there have been further discussions between the Atomic Energy Control Board and Ontario Hydro which have changed those procedures to a certain extent.

I will be discussing this matter with my colleague the Minister of Energy, who has responsibility for Hydro, to see what those changes have been, because we want to ensure that any transportation that takes place will be done in the safest possible manner.

Mrs. Grier: I am disappointed that the minister has not had discussions about the question with the Minister of Energy long before this, because the question has certainly been raised in this House with both ministers on many occasions.

I remind the Minister of the Environment that on October 22, when I asked him about the transportation of tritium, he said he was exploring the possibility of public hearings. On October 28, when I asked the Minister of Energy whether he would agree to an environmental assessment into this question, he said I should put the question to the Minister of the Environment.

Now that the Minister of the Environment has been handed a note, perhaps he can tell me whether he agrees that if the public is assuming the risks of this transportation, the public should have some input into whether the tritium should be transported. Will the Minister of the Environment have a public environmental assessment into the transportation of tritium across this province?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I indicated to the member at the time that the matter was under consideration. She will also know that the federal Department of Transport is responsible for the Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, so it also has a rather significant role to play in this. She will know that the act was revised in the not-too-distant past to reflect some of the problems that had arisen in the past. However, with the discussions that will take place with the Minister of Energy, the federal Department of Transport and the Atomic Energy Control Board -- and I am happy to participate in those -- I think we can come to a reasonable resolution to the matter.

I think all of us in this House share the concerns that have been expressed by some in the community and the knowledge that is required to assure people that any transportation that takes place will be in the safest possible manner.

Mrs. Grier: As the minister said, I am very well aware of the various roles and responsibilities of Ontario Hydro, AECB and the federal Department of Transport, but I am also aware that the role of the provincial Minister of the Environment is to give the public an opportunity for comment and discussion of issues of public concern.

If, as the minister says, he shares the concern of the public, which has raised this issue, and if he is aware that at the Metro transportation committee this morning a report showed that once a week there is transportation of the most radioactive sort of this material through Metropolitan Toronto and along Highway 401, may I repeat my previous question? Is the minister prepared to allow public hearings and an environmental assessment into this question before Ontario Hydro moves any more of this material?

Mr. Warner: Yes or no?

Mr. Wildman: Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the members of the third party will not want a simple answer to a complex question; therefore, they will not want a yes or no. This matter is under active and immediate consideration, and I expect an announcement will be made in the very near future. I think the member knows it will reflect all environmental concerns that have been expressed.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Andrewes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We have a very important issue which we wish to discuss with the Acting Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Peterson). We note the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens' affairs (Mr. Van Horne) --

Mr. Speaker: On a point of order.

Mr. Andrewes: My point of order is that in the absence of these ministers, I ask the government House leader, pursuant to standing order 29(h), to permit the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to answer questions.

Mr. Speaker: As I understand that standing order, it states that the Premier must give the authority.

LAYOFFS

Mr. Pope: In the absence of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Premier and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, I will ask my question of the government House leader and the Treasurer, in whose hands some of these matters seem to reside from time to time.

The minister will know that in 1986 the total number of layoffs in northeastern Ontario increased by 48 per cent. In the same period in northwestern Ontario, the number of layoffs increased by 254 per cent, indicating a very serious problem in northern Ontario. In 1986 alone, more than 5,000 workers in northern Ontario and their families, many of them in single-resource communities, faced actual layoffs or notice of layoffs.

Can the Treasurer and government House leader tell me what this government has done to help the laid-off workers at Pic River Forest Products, Algoma Steel, the iron workers at the iron ore mine in Wawa and the workers at Great Lakes Forest Products, at Kidd Creek Mines and at Inco?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I point out to the honourable member that 50 per cent of his caucus, including his leader, are absent today. It is no reason for my colleagues to be absent, but the Premier is indisposed. I wanted to bring that important matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker.

The member's concern for layoffs is reflected by concerns on all sides of the House. It is no help to the people who have been laid off for me to repeat what has been said by my colleagues, that in the past year 153,000 new jobs on a net basis have been established in Ontario in all areas, including the north.

I agree with the member that the proportion of these new jobs in the north is not as high as we would like, and it is not high enough for fairness and equity. Government policy is designed to try to assist in that. The Premier, as recently as last week in North Bay, announced the movement of another government ministry into northern Ontario, in North Bay.

Under the Ministry of Skills Development, we have a substantial commitment to retraining. Even in that instance, retraining must have goals that are reflected in jobs present in the concerned communities. Our policies are designed to accomplish that, but they fall far short of it. We admit that. It is also true that this has been an unpleasant aspect of northern development over the years, and we hope to correct that.

Mr. Pope: There are a number of long-term and short-term employment alternatives in which the Treasurer has an obligation to involve himself. The question with respect to the Pic River Forest Products layoffs was asked by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) on November 18, 1985. The question with respect to layoffs in Sudbury was first raised on November 21, 1985. Plant shutdowns in northern Ontario were first raised by the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) on December 3, 1985. Other plant shutdowns in the Sudbury region were raised on December 3, 1985.

Most of the layoffs to which I have just referred were announced in 1985. Since then, there has not been one long-term or short-term employment program to assist those laid-off workers in those communities. When is this government going to get rid of the kind of paralysis that seems to be affecting the Ministry of the Environment, when 1,400 jobs are at stake in Terrace Bay? When is the government going to get rid of that paralysis and do something to help laid-off workers in northern Ontario?

1430

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The House is aware that the government has a variety of programs that are designed to assist in emergency situations where there are layoffs. The government of Canada shares in this as well. We have tried to reflect that in some centres, particularly Elliot Lake, Sudbury, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. I could list a number of these communities.

It is not within my ability to respond directly to the individual situations that the honourable member has put before the House, which are regrettable. I simply reiterate the general programs that are available to assist in retraining and relocation, if necessary, although that is not the sort of solution we look for, and generally to alleviate a situation that is bad and does not seem to be getting better.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Reville: I have a question about Trintek and I would like to place it to the Minister of Energy. There are two energy-from-waste projects of passionate interest to my people in Riverdale. One, the city of Toronto's refuse-fired steam plant, is subject to an environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act, and the city has provided $50,000 to Citizens for a Safe Environment so it can participate in the public hearings.

Will the Minister of Energy recommend to his colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that the Trintek proposal, a private proposal of about one third to one half the size of the city's proposal, be dealt with in the same way; that is, under the Environmental Assessment Act, with public hearings and intervener funding?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Of course, I am very anxious to deal with energy from waste as one of the alternatives to landfill, the other alternative, to generate electricity from other sources where there is a great deal of waste to be used in that fashion. This government has undertaken to put forward some $6 million for this kind of project in northern Ontario.

I can tell the member we are very anxious to make certain that state of the art is going to exist in the installation of these kinds of plants, but I am not prepared to make government policy here on the floor of the Legislature when the member poses a question.

Mr. Reville: The Minister of Energy is prepared to have extensive discussions with Trintek and to offer Trintek millions of dollars of public money, and yet he will not stand in this House and say he wants that project to be environmentally safe. Will the minister now reconsider, look over at his colleague the Minister of the Environment and at the rest of this House and say that this project must not go forward unless it is under the Environmental Assessment Act, with public hearings and intervener funding? Nothing else will do.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am not willing to accept that we are going forward with anything other than the very safest environmental equipment that exists today. The member made that comment, and I am not prepared to accept it. I said very specifically that this government is going to see that any energy-from-waste project is environmentally safe.

At this time, they are not obliged to do some things that we are with one of the things done by municipalities. I am just suggesting to the member that I am not prepared to change that kind of policy here and now. I am certainly prepared to talk to my good friend the Minister of the Environment. We happen to get along very well. We have the same thoughts in mind about protecting the environment of Ontario. We work very closely to do that and we shall continue to do so.

I will have an answer to the member's question after we decide whether that is appropriate, but I cannot do that in an ad hoc way. I am just not prepared to do that.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) and in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), I will address a question to the government House leader. It is with respect to a speech that was given and a policy statement that was released back in April 1985. I am sure he will remember that very important time of year when a number of statements were being made. This statement pertained to the need for a justification on the part of any company that decided to close down and lay off workers. Can the House leader indicate to the members of the Legislative Assembly what kind of justification was given by Cadbury when it decided to close down that plant?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unfortunately, and this information has already been made available to the House, the closedown was announced before the government was even informed it was happening. This is regrettable. It has happened in the past, and I hope legislation that is being considered will mean it will not happen in the future. The legislation is not before the House, but it is based on the very statement to which the honourable member referred.

The member might look back in Hansard for last week, when a similar question was asked by a representative of the New Democratic Party just as effectively and the same answer was given. The matter is under active consideration. However, I thank the member for his assistance.

Mr. Brandt: I am asking the question to bring to the government's attention that it has made statements -- this may come as a surprise -- on which it has not followed through.

Has the House leader, the Premier or any member of cabinet required of Cadbury that its people sit down and discuss the reasons they closed down that plant? In the light of the fact that we do not have legislation in place at the moment, has the House leader attempted in any way, shape or form to keep that plant open? Have there been any contacts, or has he simply sat over there waiting for some long-promised legislation that has not come before the House yet?

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate this question, but we should get it straight that it is the Neilson company that is closing the plant, not the Cadbury company.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The ministry officials have met with the officials of the company concerned, so that the information is available to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. They are attempting to see what can be done. So far, I cannot announce on behalf of my colleagues anything more positive than continuing contacts.

[Later]

Mr. Brandt: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Can you wait until the end of question period?

Mr. Brandt: It is a very brief point of privilege. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), in an attempt to be helpful, pointed out to the House that the plant that was closed was the Neilson plant. I point out by way of privilege that it was the Cadbury plant, owned by Neilson. I wanted that clarification for the House.

Mr. Speaker: Members have the right to get up and correct their own record, but not someone else's record.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment, who has chosen to be in the House today. It is like some of the tales of Houdini. At times we see the minister, but most times we do not lately. The Lazarus syndrome is alive and well.

Mr. Speaker: Now that he sees him, the member should ask the question.

Mr. Pouliot: When the minister finally makes up his mind what he is going to do about Kimberly-Clark and when he finally resolves his arguments with the members of his cabinet, will he give me a guarantee that, whatever he does, there will be no further jobs lost at Kimberly-Clark?

Mr. Pope: He should be able to do that.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First, I do not control the decision-making process of any particular company in this province. There are many factors that are taken into consideration by any corporation in any jurisdiction before that company makes a decision on whether it will close, scale down or expand operations; in other words, what it is going to do.

The member has indicated publicly that he believes the company has done more than its fair share to meet its environmental commitments in this province. I know he is concerned about the effect on his riding of any potential control order. However, I want to inform him that we wish to come up with a control order, and I am working on that at present, which will be beneficial and effective in terms of the environment. It is my belief that it is not necessary for any company in the province to close because of control orders. We are looking at a number of innovations and ideas that we hope will be helpful.

Mrs. Grier: The minister talks about the decision-making process being in the purview of the company, and in response to questions from the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) he talked about the need for the company to prove the need for financial assistance. Will the minister explain to us why, in all the negotiations with Kimberly-Clark, there does not appear to have been any attempt to negotiate how it might comply with the order and how the government might assist it in complying with the order? Why is the minister not offering this company the financial assistance necessary to fulfil the environmental requirement and taking some equity in the company so that he has a say in the guarantees of the jobs in that company?

1440

Hon. Mr. Bradley: My friend the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) brings a different approach to this matter from that of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot).

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Today it is the same approach; I am sorry.

The member for Lakeshore put forward a suggestion and I must say I indicated in my remarks to both the member for Durham-York and the member for Lake Nipigon that the government is considering a number of options and has been for some time.

I know in the past the member has been an advocate that, if at all possible, the polluter assumes the cost of any pollution abatement activities that might be undertaken. I know her colleague the member for Lake Nipigon is of the belief that in this specific case the polluter might not have the kind of funds necessary to undertake this.

We would want to be assured that this was the case before making a final commitment in that direction. However, I want to assure members that we are canvassing a number of options which we believe should make it an effective and useful environmental control order. At the same time, I do not believe the company should be in the position of announcing any closing because of any environmental activities that take place in that part of the province.

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In previous questions on the Natural Fry matter, he stated in this House that he and his staff had not been involved in this issue at all. I would like to read small sections of two letters we now have from growers.

"Mr. Riddell again confirmed that the money was coming and that he would have all the bank managers contacted and assure them of same. Before we left the meeting, Mr. Riddell instructed his staff to fulfil this commitment."

In a second letter:

"Mr. Riddell again assured us that assistance was coming and he had his staff take the names of our banks with the instruction that they were to call our bank managers and assure them of OMAF's commitment to this endeavour."

Will the minister now admit that he and his ministry staff led these potato growers into financial disaster?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: No, I would not admit such a thing. As I indicated to the member for Durham-York on a number of occasions when I have had to respond to this question, I would be delighted to see any written correspondence this minister or staff sent to any potato grower, to any bank or to anyone else who expressed a concern about this matter.

I have talked to my staff, we have checked our files and absolutely nowhere in our files could a letter be produced that was sent out by this minister assuring any potato grower of financial assistance. What I have said in responding to this question on numerous occasions is that I was prepared to go to cabinet with a submission asking for some financial assistance for those potato growers who were in default of payment by Natural Fry, but such a submission was dependent on a third-party equity investor in Natural Fry.

We thought there would be a third-party equity investor but the company that was showing some interest decided there was not enough --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Stevenson: It is very clear the message of this minister today is that his word is no good unless it is in writing.

The third-party issue came along long after the financial support was discussed, and the minister is very much aware of that. I will read a portion of a third letter from Douglas Downey. I am sorry I did not give the names for the previous two letters but they are available for anybody who wants them.

"Mr. Devlin," who is the manager of the Standard Chartered Bank of Canada, "indicated to my lawyer that he had received a letter from the minister of agriculture which indicated that a loan guarantee in the amount of $400,000 will be forthcoming and it is to be principally used to pay off growers owed by Natural Fry."

Is the minister saying that letter was never written? Why does he not get off his butt today and immediately pay these farmers whom he undoubtedly led into trouble?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I have copies of those letters and I probably had copies of those letters before the member --

Mr. Davis: You say that you did not have any letters.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The letters the member is referring to; the letters he is reading from.

I am still waiting for Mr. Devlin to send me a copy of any letter that I have written. I have not received it yet but I am very anxious to receive such a letter, because in all honesty, I do not recall ever sending such a letter to anyone, to banks or potato growers. We have met with the potato growers and as soon as the potato growers decide whether they want a financial protection program in place, I think we can arrange for some financial assistance to the potato growers who sent their potatoes to Natural Fry and have not received payment. I believe we can render assistance if they decide on a financial protection program. The ball now is in their court. As soon as those growers get back to me, we will see what we can do to help them.

NORTHERN ONTARIO FUND

Mr. Wildman: Now that the chocolaty quote is over, I have a question for the Treasurer in his role as a leading cabinet source re the speculative story appearing in the Saturday edition of the Globe and Mail. Can the Treasurer enlighten the House as to the magnitude of the proposed northern Ontario fund he is considering and assure us that this fund will not be simply more of the same, an extension of the pork-barrel approach of the past, but rather that the expenditures from the fund will result from a systematic planning approach for northern development and diversification by the provincial government in consultation with northerners?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Actually, I thought the honourable member might have been part of the source on which the story was based, as I have heard him talk about this matter in the past. The concept is just a gleam in the Treasurer's eye, so to speak, although I cannot say there is anything incorrect about the story. I do not feel too put out about the fact it was printed because it may stimulate some interesting discussion and even interesting questions of the type the member has put forward.

I can assure the members that the farthest thing from our mind is some sort of continuation of the northern pork barrel that we inherited. We want to re-establish it on a fair and equitable basis that will meet the needs of northerners and that will be seen to be meeting the needs of northerners. I appreciate the assistance of the member in this regard.

Mr. Wildman: I have never claimed to be a cabinet source. I would like the Treasurer to confirm or deny the statement that said he was considering the dimensions of a northern fund and whether it could be used for continuing development or be a rainy day economic tool.

1450

Will the minister not agree that we have had far too many rainy days in northern communities during the past year or so? Is he prepared to end the crisis management and ad hoc, stopgap measures of the Tory governments of the past, which are what we have also seen from this Liberal government, with regard to the assistance given to Manitouwadge and Marathon, for instance?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The speculative piece really did read like a crossword definition list. Presumably, the rainy day tool is an umbrella, unless the member has something else in mind. I assure members that our intentions are sterling, that we want to do the best in the disposition of public funds, scarce though those are, so the north gets its fair share and programs will be seen to be equitable and fair, unlike those programs we inherited. It is quite a challenge for us to look at the array of programs in place now and see that they can be amended so that they service the needs of the north and that northerners participate in those decisions.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The Minister of Health knows that Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, is before this Legislature for third and final reading. In fact, this Legislature could deal with it in about five minutes. His officials have been attending all the hearings in relation to Bill 71. I would like to know what the minister's objections are to the principles of controlling smoking in public and in the work place and what specific objections he has to Bill 71. I think I have a right to know.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not think anyone here has a particular objection in principle to the honourable gentleman's desire to control smoking in the work place. In fact, the member will acknowledge that I did announce the policy of the Ministry of Health with respect to controlling smoking and doing it in a sensible way in allowing procedures to be put in place which accommodate those people who need assistance to help them stop smoking. As I mentioned last week, those types of principles are for a number of us, for most of us probably, without question the ones we would like to pursue. That is what the Ministry of Health is doing.

With respect to the work place, the Minister of Health does not have exclusive jurisdiction with respect to control of the work place. That is done in co-operation, between myself and the Minister of Labour. We have a number of people who may be required to co-ordinate efforts to assist us to come up with an overall policy, but with respect to enforcement and other things, I have to work in only those spheres where the Minister of Health has direct legislative authorization to do so.

Mr. Sterling: We are talking about making legislation. We are talking about a piece of legislation passed by all members of this Legislature. The question is -- and I do not want him to dodge it, because I am going to continue to dog him on it until he answers it -- what are his objections to Bill 71? Is he for or against it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I support the principle of Bill 71, as I said earlier, and I suspect all members here support the idea of making the work place and public buildings more reasonable places to be. We all recognize the problems the honourable gentleman's bill attempts to deal with, that is, the question of secondhand smoke as well as the dangers inherent in smoking, as have been set out before.

I have a particular situation in my own ministry that I have announced we are pursuing, which is dealing with the question of secondhand smoke. We will continue to deal with that. I support the principle of the bill but we have not yet come to grips with some of the problems inherent in the manner in which the bill is designed to be enforced.

JUVENILE CRIME

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Correctional Services. Is the minister aware of a proposal before his ministry for a study on the effects of vision assessment and therapy and learning disorders on juvenile crime? If so, will the minister give us his assurance that he will support such a study?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I am not aware of the exact details of a study going that far. I am aware, however, that we have been doing a great deal of work with additional contracts for services for people suffering psychological, psychiatric and behavioural disorders. There has been some discussion only on that, but I will gladly check and bring further details to the honourable member.

Mr. Philip: When the minister is checking it out, he may be very interested to know that the original studies started in another ministry. According to the proposal before his ministry now, on the basis of American research, for the expenditure of $400,000, the minister would likely save some $4.5 million in correctional costs alone. Will the minister assure the House that he will give careful consideration to the proposal, not only in the light of the human waste that is being caused under the present system but also from the point of view of the tax money he would save?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I will be happy to give that assurance. I will be happy to do anything that will keep our ministry in the forefront of reform in the field of corrections.

PRIVACY RIGHTS

Mr. Gregory: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In the latter part of October 1986, concern was expressed by my colleague the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) about the accessibility to driver and vehicle information through the ministry. In response to those concerns, the minister stated in a press release that his ministry would introduce a revised, stricter system and that his staff would monitor the nature of the requests for information for a 30-day period to determine whether any further changes to policy were needed.

Has the minister determined whether any further changes to the driver and vehicle information search procedures are necessary?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I think the honourable member is referring to the first part of the request of the member for St. George. That related to information obtained through the licence plate. We did implement that for a 30-day period. We have found it most satisfactory and have continued with the new reform and regulation related to the information obtainable from the licence plate, as we said we would. We have continued that practice.

Mr. Gregory: In the press release we referred to a few minutes ago, the minister stated that those who request information will now have to provide their name and address, produce confirming identification and give the reason for the search.

Consistent with her concern for the safety of the women in this province, my colleague in a letter to the minister dated October 30 offered two additional changes to protect further the right to privacy of women drivers in Ontario. As the opposition critic for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I share the concern of my colleague and I extend it to all drivers in this province. Has the minister implemented the additional changes recommended to him at that time?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: As previously stated, there are really two parts to the question that is being asked. One is that we have implemented for the 30-day period the information that was available on the basis of the licence plate. We are satisfied with the changes that were made and we are going to carry them on as a matter of policy.

The second part that the member is referring to concerns information related to the driver's licence, which is under current review. Any change that may be necessary to protect the interests of female or male drivers throughout the province will be effected in the near future if it is deemed to be necessary.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Will the government of Ontario intervene before the Canadian Competition Tribunal and register its objection to the takeover by the Neilson company of Cadbury Schweppes and its announced intention to close the plant in Whitby?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member raised that in question period last Thursday. He raised it again today and indicated there was substantial support for such a course of action. I will see that it is given serious consideration if it is not already under consideration.

Mr. Breaugh: Would it be reasonable to assume that an announcement will be made this week on the government's intention to intervene on behalf of the 400 workers in that plant?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: If the government decides to intervene, it will be reasonable to assume that.

1500

Mr. Speaker: Does that complete question period? The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Has he either been given instructions by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) or has he taken it upon himself to report to the Premier within six months with a strategy for an education training system, as suggested in the Dryden report?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: We should congratulate the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere for quickly identifying that no one in either opposition party had any more questions to ask, notwithstanding that the time for question period had not expired.

The answer is a simple one. I have neither reported to the Premier with a strategy nor made that recommendation, but I will tell the member this time, as I have told him many times before in connection with the Dryden report, we are carefully considering many of the themes that have been identified in the report. As we proceed, we will keep him advised on where we are going on it.

Mr. Warner: There is no shortage of questions. It is a shortage of answers that is the problem.

Does the minister not realize the essence of the report is that the education training system has failed the young people of this province and what is needed is a new direction? Will he give us the commitment that he will provide an overall plan within six months?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is not unlike an individual who has one theme he sees in everything. Whatever report he reads, he sees that theme; so I can understand why he identifies that theme and that theme only as he reads through the Dryden report.

As I have said before, in writing that report Mr. Dryden identified from the very beginning that the problem of youth unemployment in Ontario and Canada is perhaps one of the most complex problems we have in that it touches almost every aspect of life -- family issues, economic structural issues, federal-provincial issues and the like. The member wants a simple answer to a very complex question, and I am not going to give it to him.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on health be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Wednesday, January 21, and Thursday, January 22.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Miss Stephenson and Mr. Grossman exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business and that, notwithstanding standing order 71(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to the ballot item standing in the name of Mr. Grossman.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member should not say we never did anything for him.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved government notice of motion 10, routine committee assignment changes.

Reading dispensed with [see Votes and Proceedings].

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved first reading of Bill Pr59, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Charlton moved first reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)

On vote 1903, real estate program:

Mr. Chairman: Order. There are many conversations going on. Will you please break up the conversations so we can carry on with the estimates?

On Thursday, we were in the middle of vote 1903. Do either of the critics have anything to say? Thank you. Perhaps the members near the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) could carry on their conversation elsewhere.

Mr. Reville: You and me both, Mr. Chairman. We will quieten them down right away. When we were last at this place in the book, my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) was having at the minister about the Ontario Land Corp. I would like to return to the OLC and ask the minister some questions. We see by the minister's statement that a new philosophy has been developed in terms of the goals of the Ontario Land Corp. I welcome that change in philosophy, but I would like to examine in a little more detail the nature of the change to determine whether this is a real change in philosophy or whether this is a rhetorical change in philosophy. I am sure the minister will help us with this.

On page 8 of his statement, the minister says a major component of the assured housing strategy is to promote the use of government lands for rental housing. That assured housing strategy plank has now been grafted on to the OLC's goals. Could he explain in more detail how that is to work and what are the criteria by which he decides whether the sale of a piece of government land advances the goals of his assured housing strategy?

1510

Hon. Mr. Curling: I stated in my opening remarks how the utilization of government lands would bring about affordable accommodation; that the land would be used as a tool in that sense. I also explained in my opening remarks that the rental housing utilization of lands committee will sit down to work with all the criteria to be used. That has not yet been fully prepared. One of the factors in the cost of housing is the price of land. We felt that we could use available government land to reduce the cost. In disposing of our land, we will respect the marketplace and all other criteria which may have some effect. The bottom line is to use the land to bring affordability closer to the people who need that type of accommodation.

Mr. Reville: Is the strategy to market the lands under the control of the OLC at their book value, at their market value or at some other value?

Hon. Mr. Curling: In my statement, I said there are certain lands that we will bring up if they are to be serviced. If they are to be disposed of, we will get market value, the best price for that land. As I said just a few moments ago, it will be done so as not to put any undue pressure on the market itself and suppress the price. We want to get the best price for government lands, and not just have a fire sale.

Mr. Reville: I detect some inconsistency in the minister's policy thrust here. The objective is to further the goals of the affordable housing strategy. Given that the cost of land and the speculative profits that are found in the cost of land are one of the reasons that we cannot get affordable housing, how can the minister achieve affordable housing goals by selling government lands at market value? There is an inconsistency here.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I do not see any inconsistency with that. The member asked me whether there would be a fire sale. He did not use those words, but he asked how we were going to do this. I told him in a very responsible way, that is one indication, in selling it to the private investors. The cost of building affordable housing is high because land prices drive up the prices. We were using land in that way to bring up the price. Perhaps we could stretch out the payments over time so as not to increase the cost unduly.

There is no inconsistency. There are different ways, different lands and different individuals. There is commercial, industrial and residential land. We will be using various kinds of lands in various ways to make sure, first, that we get the best price for that land if we sell it to the private sector; and second, if it is targeted to housing, which is very much my concern, that people who need residential accommodation get it at an affordable rate.

Mr. Reville: This is perhaps one of the most absurd answers I have heard yet. The minister is saying he is going to sell the land to get the best price possible. Why is the government behaving like a speculator? How can the government achieve affordable housing if it is selling land at the top price?

I want to know how much the minister thinks is an appropriate unit cost of land. His notion that the payments can be spread over a number of years seems to indicate he has no notion of what a mortgage is. A mortgage spreads out payment over a number of years. That has been one of the problems. Because you are paying over a number of years, the amount of interest you pay on the capital cost of the housing project drives the costs way up. Surely the minister is not going to suggest that this is the brilliant strategy for the Ontario Land Corp.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The only way that the member may understand is for me to keep on repeating what I have said. I am hearing from him that we should not give away the land. We have government land, and I think he feels that just to dispose of it --

Mr. Reville: I did not say that.

Hon. Mr. Curling: He did not say that. We are going to behave in a responsible way. We have good land to sell and we will quite possibly sell it for industrial and commercial purposes. Where people are confronted with the problem of the affordability of housing, we will use that land as a way to bring affordable housing to those people. A committee has been struck to examine the best way to do this. There is no inconsistency in that. Each case will be examined and addressed accordingly.

Mr. Reville: I want to ask the minister how much of the capital cost of any typical housing project is contributed by land cost.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It varies, depending on the region and the availability of land. I gather it could go to about 30 per cent. The cost rises because there is no land available in some instances. I cannot give a precise answer. It depends on the region.

Mr. Reville: Would the minister agree that one of the problems in building affordable housing is not that there is not any land but that the land that is available is so expensive that the cost of the housing on the land is perforce too high?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Being very technical, of course, there are all kinds of lands all over the place. Would you build there? Is there accessibility to transportation, etc.? We are speaking in those terms. It is not going to be an elementary explanation because I know my honourable friend is a quite learned individual and quite up to date in what is required in having affordable housing because of accessibility. There are all types of land in Ontario. I have driven from Sault Ste. Marie to Kenora, and I have seen lands that stretch forever. There are swamps too, of course, but there is heartland.

When we spoke about lands, I thought we were talking about lands that are accessible to transportation, to shopping, etc.

1520

Mr. Reville: The lands that are managed by the Ontario Land. Corp. at the moment were acquired by the Ontario taxpayers at a particular cost. There is a book value for those lands. Why will the minister not offer those lands, for housing purposes only, at less than market value as long as he recoups the taxpayers' investment? What is his problem?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Again, as I said at the rental housing utilization of lands committee, we will be looking at all these. I think it an excellent idea. If we are going to sell it at less than market value, we are going to make sure we address it to those in need. When the committee sits down to examine that, one of the things we may do is say we encourage one to build in an area where that is needed. It is quite possible that is one of things we may do in addressing this need. That will be taken into consideration; I think it is an excellent idea.

Mr. Reville: There is a project that I am not at all familiar with described in the minister's address to this vote, on page 10. It relates to a tender call for the sale and conversion to housing of Victoria College in Cobourg. I assume that Victoria College was at one time owned by one of the ministries of the government, that it is now no longer in use and that the government is prepared call for tenders on having it converted to housing. It sounds like a good idea. Will the minister describe the proposal call to us so perhaps we can get some inkling of the minister's policy?

Hon. Mr. Curling: A tender call was issued, and the ministry was not satisfied with that tender call. We will issue it again. If the member wants me to send him the detail of the process of the tender call, I will gladly do so, because that is what he requires to get a feel of what the tender call is all about. I can have the staff prepare for him a detailed process of what the tender call is all about. He can then sit at home and digest that. I think it will meet his requirements.

Mr. Reville: I will appreciate it if the minister provides the details of the tender call in respect of Victoria College in Cobourg, although I will reserve the right not to read it at home, because I am not there long enough to read anything lengthy. I am interested, though, in why the first tender call was not successful. Was it because the type of housing tendered was inadequate or because the amount of money the developer was prepared to pay for the site was inappropriate?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I gather that when the tenders were received they did not meet the requirements as laid down in the document. That was the main reason it was reissued.

Mr. Reville: With respect, that was precisely the question I asked. I understand it did not meet the requirements of the tender call. I am asking whether the minister will tell us in which respects it did not meet the terms of the tender call.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I stated I could make available to the honourable member why they did not meet the requirements. As with most tenders, people buying land, renting or whatever put certain conditions to their applications, and if the applications do not meet our requirements, we will turn them down, accept one or go for another call. If he wants more details than that, I can make available the requirements stipulated and why the tenders were turned down.

Mr. Reville: That concludes my questions for this time.

Mr. Cordon: I am prepared to vote on this section.

Vote 1903 agreed to.

On vote 1904, community housing program:

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like to make some comments on this. Pray thee that the voice maintains its resonance.

This ministry has many responsibilities, ranging from the building industry strategy through to its internal operations, such as management resources, shared services and long-term fiscal and human resource planning. The issue that must and does dominate our operations and existence is housing and housing supply. That is the crux of the comments I would like to make now with regard to vote 1904, community housing.

I should like to begin by outlining what this government has set as its housing policy. Simply stated, this government believes that the people of Ontario deserve access to affordable, good-quality housing, and in turn, the public rightly expect its provincial government to do everything feasible to make this objective a reality.

Members will recall that in December 1985, I announced the assured housing policy, a broad spectrum of programs designed to address the serious shortage of rental accommodation that existed across Ontario. I began by making a commitment at that time to produce 6,700 social housing units each year for five years in the form of municipal --

Mr. O'Connor: What is the minister talking about? There has not been one in Oakville. He has not given us a cent in two years. This is absolute drivel.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Oakville will have his chance to comment as soon as the minister is through.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is surprising that many of the members feel this whole shortage came about in the past couple of months or so, but I would say it was the gross neglect by the previous government.

As I stated, I began my commitment at that time to produce 6,700 social housing units each year for five years in the form of municipal and private nonprofit housing as well as co-operative projects.

I am pleased to report that we have in process applications for projects that will result in close to 16,000 rental units being committed during the current fiscal year. This total includes 6,700 nonprofit units, 5,000 modest-rental units through the Renterprise program and 4,000 new rental units through convert-to-rent. In addition, we have provided funds for the building or rehabilitation of 300 rural and native housing units.

Last fall, I had the honour of announcing an initiative of which I am extremely proud. I pledged to help nonprofit sponsors to provide an additional 3,000 housing units primarily for the most disadvantaged of our society.

Early this month, we advertised for local community organizations and nonprofit housing groups to contact us with the concept of providing shelter for the hard-to-house. While this special initiative will serve a broad range of groups, the emphasis will be on helping the neediest, such as the homeless; battered spouses; physically, developmentally and psychiatrically handicapped adults; and low-income singles. Since many of the people who will benefit from this special attention will need ongoing support, we are continuing to work closely with agencies so that these tenants will get the kind of additional support they need.

1530

Some members may already know we are planning orientation sessions for organizations interested in sponsoring this type of housing and necessary support services. Sessions will be held next month at our six regional housing program offices. If any members wish to submit the names of potential sponsors, I will be pleased to put them in touch with the appropriate regional office.

We are calling for preliminary applications indicating an intent to develop a project to be submitted by March 31. Eligibility will depend on the degree and nature of the support share that will be provided. Later this month, we will be announcing an allocation of 6,700 nonprofit housing units under the federal-provincial housing program. I wish to repeat that this 3,000-unit provincial initiative, unlike the federal-provincial program which is cost-shared, will be funded 100 per cent by the province. The 3,000 units will be in addition to the 6,700 units.

This government now has made commitments to help generate the construction of almost 19,000 new low- and moderate-income rental apartments compared to about 6,300 units the year before. This is an increase of well over 150 per cent from those commitments in 1985-86. This surely demonstrates that we are pledged to solve the housing problems of this province. The almost 19,000 rental units committed are the highest total ever reached by the Ministry of Housing. I should point out that the highest annual total before that year was in 1975-76 when just over 10,000 units were committed. I can understand the frustration of my honourable friend across the floor.

Of the 19,000 units, more than 50 per cent will be allocated to needy households whose rents will be based on the income of the tenant rather than the type or size of the accommodation. Units will be built in nearly 300 Ontario communities, with Metro Toronto receiving more than 5,400 units or almost 35 per cent of the total.

I now would like to address the subject of the Ontario Housing Corp. as a landlord. It has often been pointed out that OHC is the largest landlord in Ontario with the responsibility to provide shelter for 340,000 men, women and children. It is also the second-largest landlord in all of North America.

Ontario Housing Corp. provides rent-geared-to-income housing for qualified lower-income families, senior citizens and physically, developmentally and psychiatrically handicapped persons. A network of 58 local housing authorities across the province is responsible for the day-to-day management of the 84,000 units owned by OHC. Another 35,000 units are supported by OHC through a variety of other programs.

Under the leadership of David B. Greenspan, who became chairman of the board of directors this year, Ontario Housing Corp. is taking a new direction in its relationship with tenants and the broader society. Both Mr. Greenspan and I feel very strongly about meeting the responsibilities OHC has towards the taxpayers who support OHC, towards the society in which OHC operates and towards the tenants who live in the housing managed by the corporation.

I would like to speak about the major responsibilities OHC has towards its tenants, responsibilities that the corporation takes very seriously. The first and most obvious is to provide decent and affordable housing for those who require assistance. A significant portion of the commitments to the new low- and moderate-income rental apartments mentioned earlier will be made available to local housing authorities to alleviate waiting lists.

The next responsibility is to use standards for eligibility to subsidized housing that reflect the genuine need that exists in the community. An era of unprecedented social change has brought new demands on government services, which in the case of the Ontario Housing Corp. means that more people require the housing it can provide.

The breakdown of the traditional nuclear family -- and that of the extended family, for that matter -- has eliminated many of the structures that people used to rely on for help. As a result, we in society are faced with a new kind of human need, a human need that OHC is attempting to meet. As members are aware, during the past year we have extended eligibility to the psychiatrically handicapped as well as lowered the eligibility age for single parents from 18 to 16 years of age.

The OHC board of directors recently approved new guidelines giving top priority to battered women and their children, many of whose lives may depend on such readiness to give shelter. This policy was adopted as part of this government's commitment to improve services to victims of family violence.

One area where new initiatives are being put in place is at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, the largest such body in the province. I should first mention the recent appointment of John Sewell as the full-time chairman of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. Mr. Sewell's broad interest in community affairs will bring a new sensitivity to the day-to-day management of public housing in Metro Toronto.

A second major initiative is related to the Ontario government's commitment to ensure a climate of positive race relations across the province. As I announced in the Legislature in June 1986, a plan of action has been undertaken to ensure that race relations within housing projects, initially within Metro Toronto, remain positive.

The Metro Toronto Housing Authority serves as the landlord to 90,000 tenants, a population as great as that of the city of Sudbury. The tenants represent a wide and diverse variety of backgrounds and present equally diverse social, recreational and cultural needs. A fully comprehensive race relations policy for Ontario Housing projects in Metro Toronto is being developed.

As a first step, Mr. Chimbo Poe-Mutumba has been appointed director of race relations policies and programs for the Metro Toronto Housing Authority. His mandate is to promote and sustain an environment of harmony, co-operation and mutual understanding among residents. Mr. Poe-Mutumba is a catalyst. He will draw on the strength and resources of both the professional resource people already serving the residents of MTHA and the residents themselves. The director is already moving quickly to develop a race relations policy statement that reflects the views of the tenants and local community organizations, and then to implement that policy statement in constructive and meaningful ways. The director will also chair a committee of tenants, community representatives and housing authority staff.

The director is responsible for a number of initiatives whose ultimate goal is to improve the quality of life in Metro Toronto housing projects. These include adding 11 new community relations workers to the staff, bringing the total to 38; working with the housing authority staff to find ways to improve communications and eliminate misunderstandings between tenants and staff; exploring methods of recruiting multilingual and racial minority staff; and developing and implementing cross-cultural training for housing authority maintenance workers.

Significant steps are being taken to ensure that the 58 local housing authorities reflect the real makeup of Ontario's population. Housing authority members are appointed by all three levels of government. I have requested that the Honourable Stewart Mclnnes, the federal minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., and all of Ontario's municipal councils begin now to ensure that the membership of housing authorities accurately represents the people of this province.

1540

We also want to ensure that Ontario Housing Corp. tenants are fully familiar with the cultural, social, recreational and educational programs provided by all provincial ministries. Staff of OHC want to make sure that tenants have access to every program and service that might be of assistance, whether it be a community-based social service or a program provided by another ministry.

Another challenge OHC faces is to come to grips with the cycle of economic and educational defeat that affects so many tenants, particularly the young. The lack of steady employment is a major problem for many tenants and, when coupled with social difficulties, can lead to further problems. OHC is committed to developing ways to target our residents, particularly the young, for Ontario employment and job training programs. Housing authorities are looking at ways in which young residents might be hired through our job creation programs. These measures are intended to provide tenants with economic opportunities to which they might not otherwise have access.

Major strides are also being made in improving relations between OHG as a landlord and the tenants in the projects across the province. Whether our tenants are in the system temporarily as a result of some unforeseen crisis or as a necessity to begin a new life in this province or whether they are there permanently -- and the reality is that many of them are there permanently -- all deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Our tenants have a need for comfort and security, and OHC has a responsibility to improve their quality of life.

The Ontario Housing Corp. has established an enviable record for the range of programs that is made available to young people. We are going to build on that record and make our housing projects a better place to live.

We could restrict ourselves to looking after the bricks and mortar of housing units or we can work to achieve an environment that gives people the chance to become all they are capable of becoming. We want an environment that encourages the young and sustains the elderly, that generates pride and self-respect for all.

I would like to end my remarks by touching on the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless. With a United Nations designation, the government of Canada agreed to recognize and support a global effort measurably to improve the living conditions of the poor within all nations. Canada designated Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. as its agent for this undertaking.

Ontario is the first province to establish a supportive initiative. A ministry staff secretariat has been established to provide support services, act as a liaison with other ministries and governments and design and implement a public awareness program. Also, a 10-person advisory committee representing various parts of this province and with demonstrated experience on the issue of homelessness will advise us and recommend long-term approaches for the future.

It has been said many times that a civilization is judged ultimately by the way in which it cares for its least fortunate citizens. In any community, those are the men, women and children known as the homeless. At present, we do not know precisely how many people are homeless in Ontario -- estimates range from 5,000 to 15,000 -- but we do know Ontario has a moral obligation to these individuals and a commitment to do everything possible to shelter them.

Ontario is recognized as a leader in many areas of social and economic development. We must now establish Ontario as a leader in finding creative and constructive solutions for the problem of homelessness. We must examine the full range of services that are required to integrate the homeless, to help them become functioning members of our society at whatever level they choose to participate. We have the opportunity to provide dignity and security for those who have been denied those basic human needs.

Mr. Gordon: Before we launch into detailed questioning of the community housing vote in the minister's budget, I would like to make a few comments at the beginning.

I point out to the minister and the ministry that it is the duty of a critic, whether it be the New Democratic or the Conservative critic, to look not only at the programs and policies enshrined in the ministry, but it is also our responsibility to look at how and where the minister is spending the money. These estimates have given some of us on this side of the House what one could call pause. It is not, as in the advertisement, "the pause that refreshes"; it is more the pause that causes us some concern.

As the minister knows, in this province of ours, people pay personal income tax to the province. They pay moneys to the province through the sales tax every time they purchase an item. People expect that we at the second level of government in this country, the provincial level, are going to ensure, when the estimates of the various government ministries are brought forward, that the moneys are spent in a wise and thrifty manner.

No one likes to pay tax; none of us does. We do it because we believe that by paying tax we are helping to provide better services for the majority of the people in this province. It really bothers people if they begin to feel that their tax money is not providing the greatest possible benefit to the people for whom the program or programs of a ministry such as this are intended. People are concerned whether those moneys are being spent in the most efficient, prudent and fiscally responsible manner.

I am not here to lecture the minister on the issue of how to raise taxes and how to spend money, but I have to tell him that there are those of us on this side of the House who are very concerned about this ministry and what has happened. We have been talking about his policies and we will continue to talk about his policies. I would like to talk for a few minutes about how he is spending his money.

To date, we have debated these expenditures -- for example, the first item was what we call ministry administration. Then we went on to the Ontario building program. We have just finished what is called the real estate program. The purpose of an estimates debate is to hold the government of the day, or more specifically the minister of the day, responsible and accountable for his or her spending for a particular ministry.

As the estimates we are currently reviewing involve moneys already spent, it is only natural that one would expect the minister to have what one would call a more intimate understanding and knowledge of where the money has been spent and be able to account for significant changes over the previous fiscal year.

1550

What has been obvious during these estimates is that there has been a certain reluctance -- for what reason only the minister can answer -- to explain his estimates in the kind of detail we on this side of the House would like to see. This is something that only he can grapple with. He has to give the answer as to why this is the case.

In our view, there have been radical spending increases in this ministry. We have to ask ourselves whether this money is really going towards providing more housing and apartment units or whether it is being spent in ways that some people would call empire-building or self-publicizing breast beating and saying: "Boom, boom, boom. We are the best." Some people in the government would say that is not so, but if one picked up any paper in the last month or so and saw the full-page advertisements on Bill 51, we have to question that. We have to say, "Do you have to advertise to quite that extent?" When one considers what a full-page ad costs today in the major and smaller newspapers, the government is spending a tremendous amount of money.

Nevertheless, I do not think it is too much to expect that when a ministry or minister requires major increases in budgetary expenditures, the minister ought to be in a position to explain why these expenditure increases are needed, specifically where the money is going and what the benefits of spending this money are going to be. I would like to point that out to the minister and to the members of the government. We want to know what the benefits are going to be of the kind of radical increases in budgets that we see in this ministry's estimates. The minister would be the first to tell me it is his role to manage and to look not only at the overall picture of his ministry, and he has pointed that out to us, but also at the various component parts.

What I have found particularly frustrating to date is, as I said, there seems to be what some would call an unwillingness to explain the spending that is going on within the ministry. When I look at these estimates and see major increases of as much as 100 per cent and 200 per cent in spending in this ministry and then the minister does not explain to us why this is the case, I cannot help but think perhaps the minister thinks the people of Ontario have given him an American Express credit card and carte blanche to spend anything and everything he wants.

We all know that just recently the government decided it was going to use American Express as the card of choice for this government. That is despite the fact this government says it is concerned about the fact that so far Toronto has not been designated as an international banking centre. The people of this province have not given the minister a credit card or carte blanche for spending, but it looks to us as if he thinks he is dealing with credit card money rather than the real dollars so many people have to fork out every time they pay personal income tax in Ontario or whenever they pay for an article in a store and they have to pay sales tax.

There has to be a limit somewhere. I know who will pick up the tab when the statement comes in, that credit card statement I was talking about, which the minister seems to be using. The taxpayers of Ontario will be paying. It is painfully obvious to us on this side of the House that this ministry is out of fiscal control because it is out of political control.

Overall, the ministry is asking for a global increase of not five per cent, 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, 30 per cent, 35 per cent or 40 per cent, but 43.5 per cent, in 1986-87. This ministry is not hiring five more people, 20 more people, 40 more people or even 75 more people. Do I hear 125? Do I hear 150? Do I hear 195 people? I am sure the minister will be glad to get up in the House right now and enlighten us, tell us. Perhaps he will allow me to do that. It is hiring, bringing on board, in this year, when up north we have an unemployment rate of 12 per cent, people for 217 new positions. That is over and above the people working for the ministry already. Here we have a ministry that in 1986-87 has a global increase in its budget of more than 43 per cent and is opening up 217 new positions. It seems that the minister is pretty well running his ministry as if he had a credit card. The problem is the people of Ontario are going to pick up the tab. The minister is not picking up the tab; they are. I think this ministry is out of fiscal control.

Let us take a minute to review some of the spending increases set by the minister before we go on to set the stage for the community housing ballot. What did vote 1901 do? Vote 1901, which dealt with administration in the ministry, asked for a 34.6 per cent increase in expenditures over 1985-86. Eighteen new staff positions were created. If one went down the various line items, one could see that a line item analysis of the ministry administration program showed a 13 per cent increase in the main office, a 32 per cent increase in information services, a 14 per cent increase in supply and office services, a 79 per cent increase in systems development services, a 40 per cent increase in legal services and an overall increase of 34 per cent in expenditures over 1985-86 in this area alone.

Is it any wonder that when the business community examines government, it says, "You people could not run the corner store at the rate you are going." If I ran my house or my family business the way the people in the Ministry of Housing are running the ministry right now, I would be bankrupt in six months.

Mr. Davis: That is true. Why so long?

Mr. Gordon: Perhaps I am brave and optimistic and think I could last six months. Perhaps I could last only three months. Let us take the average Ontarians, statistically: a man and wife with 1.5 or two children. If they ran their family budget the way this budget has been run in the past year, there would be creditors at their door. There would be someone there to take away their furniture, and there would be somebody there to repossess the car. The only reason they have not repossessed this ministry is it has a free lunch.

1600

This ministry is raising taxes and then spending that money any way it wants, any way it wants at all. Those of us on this side of the House know that in this year, this government is raising a surplus of more than $1 billion from the people of Ontario. Of course, that is the Liberal way. The Liberal way is this: "We know what is good for you; so what the good people of Ontario must do is allow us to raise the taxes, whether it be on personal income tax as was done in the first budget or whether it be on sales taxes. We will raise the money from gasoline tax" -- yes, gasoline tax too -- "and then we will spend it in a way that we believe is good for you."

In examining the ministry's budget, every Ontarian knows full well that for every increase in this budget -- and the overall budget increase was 43 per cent, 217 new positions -- there is less money in his pocket. That is less money for that individual or for that family when it comes to going out to buy milk at the corner store or to do any number of things that families or individuals in our society normally do. They have less money. That money has to come from somewhere, and it comes from the people of this province. That is where it comes from. I do not see fiscal accountability in this ministry. It is frightening to see what is happening in this ministry.

Let us be fair about it. I do not want to be unfair. I would not want the minister to walk out of here later tonight and say, "The member for Sudbury was unfair." To be perfectly fair to the minister, he did not really answer my question in a general way when I posed it. If I recall correctly, he said the increased expenditures on information services -- information services, as we all know on both sides of the House, is the part of the ministry that deals with such things as pamphlets, brochures, the placing of advertisements in newspapers and that general sort of public relations that is done within a ministry.

To be perfectly fair to the minister, he did tell us that because of the advertising done by that part of his ministry that extols to the people of Ontario the virtues of the Ministry of Housing, 28,000 more have applied for social housing in Ontario. That is right. A further 28,000 people applied for social housing because of all the brochures that were put out and all the publicizing that was done. Now we can add those 28,000 people to the waiting list. It would seem to me that besides adding people to the waiting list, we should be building more housing units, more rental units for the people of Ontario.

We should try to maximize the use of the money that flows into the government and is used by the ministry. If I were maximizing the money that was coming in, I would do so in a way that made me feel comfortable, so that when I went home to my riding or to a function where there were the people of Ontario I would not feel uncomfortable and feel that they could come up to me and say: "Jim, why are you spending so much on administration in that ministry? Do you have to spend that much in administration to build one more apartment unit?" I would want to say to them that I could justify those administrative costs.

Let us talk a little bit about administration in this ministry. The minister claims that increased expenditures go to create housing for Ontarians. On this point there is a credibility gap on the minister's part. There is an increase of 34 per cent in administration -- and let us be clear about this, administration is paper-pushing. We are not saying that those people who push the paper are not competent people or are not interested in what they are doing, but when the increase in a ministry in any one year is 34 per cent in administration and paper-pushing, the minister cannot tell me that is building more apartment units. That is especially so today, when one of the members on this side of the House can point out that there is a vacancy rate of zero in Burlington. In other words, if you are looking for an apartment in Burlington today it just cannot be found, period; yet the minister has here an increase of 34 per cent in administration.

Let us look at another vote we had not too long ago, the Ontario building program. In that program, the minister was asking for a 300 per cent increase in expenditures. As I said the other day, we are not saying the program itself is not worth while. We are saying the amount of money he is pouring into this program this year, a 300 per cent increase, is excessive. This program will not be worth any of the $6.6 million that is required if the political will to give it form and substance is lacking. That is our concern on this side of the House.

Some other interesting expenditures that we should note are in the building services component of this program. It asks for a 36 per cent increase in salary expenditures alone. I am beginning to think that we on this side of the House are in the wrong business. Perhaps we should be applying for a job at the Ministry of Housing, especially with the increases in salaries we see here. I am sure a lot of people are beginning to think that they may be working in the wrong place and that they should maybe be working for the Ministry of Housing.

It might be interesting if the minister could provide us -- perhaps his staff will make note of this; I think I have already asked for it -- with the salaries he is paying at the upper end in the ministry and whether these salaries have gone up in an exorbitant manner in the past two years. The minister has been there for almost two years and he has a record. He cannot go back and say, "Well, you know, three years ago, four years ago." That will not wash.

These increases we are talking about are his; they are not mine. He did not invite me over and say: "Jim, here is a pencil. Sit down with me tonight at the kitchen table, and we will rough out the budget for this Ministry of Housing on the back of an envelope." I do not think he could put it on the back of an envelope any more. Of course, we all know he is not putting it on the back of an envelope, do we not?

Under the Ontario construction program, which he launched under vote 1902, beside consultants probably the biggest expenditure was in computers. I do not want to make fun of computers. I do not want to appear like somebody who is not with it in this year, 1987. However, does the minister know what computers do? They are great big filing cards. They are big cabinets that are filled with filing cards. Electronically, we can get at the information on those filing cards. However, computers do not make a ministry, do not make policies and do not make programs; people do this. Putting more and more computerization into his ministry and spending the money he is spending right now does not mean he is going to have more housing built faster in this province. It just means he has more filing cards in a machine that allows him to get at those filing cards fast, electronically.

1610

I am not going to tell the minister about computers. I would not dare. Considering how much people know about computers in this province, I probably have already made a big mistake in talking about how little I know about computers. However, I hope the minister is not counting on those computers to build more houses for him. It requires a lot of political oomph on his part.

Let us look at a few of the other expenditures here. We have already seen there is a 36 per cent increase in salary expenditures alone. Twenty-seven additional staff persons are to be hired. I cannot help but think that somewhere, somehow, work is being duplicated in this ministry. I would like to see the minister go through his ministry with a fine tooth comb and see whether he is not duplicating.

The point is that fiscal management suffers when political management is ineffective. Let me point out to the minister that a major portion of the increased funding for the Ontario building program is to be spent on consultants. Far be it from me to say anything in a disparaging way about consultants, but one has only to have picked up the newspapers in this great province of ours over the past few years to find there has been more frustration over consultants and the kinds of reports they bring in or do not bring in than over practically any other subject. The public is well aware of what happens when one brings in consultants.

There is something else we would like the minister to make note of. Last week the minister could not point out to me how much was going to be spent on consultants. Perhaps I was intemperate for a few seconds, and it is completely unlike me to be agitated, but when he told me to read that page and it was not there, I flew right off the handle. The minister will have to admit that he did not tell me how much he was going to spend on consultants.

I do not know whether this is some secret. I do not know whether Ward Cornell, the deputy minister of this great ministry that is out of fiscal control, is planning to bring in some British consultants from his days over there as one of our ambassadors of goodwill and so forth, but we would like to know how much these consultants are going to cost and what they are going to do. We have already indicated to the minister that we have some doubts as to whether they are going to be effective. I have a feeling he may have some answers for me on that today or tomorrow. I promise to give him my 100 per cent attention, the same as I would give my attention to the chair.

What really bothered us on this side of the House was that the minister did not tell us what criteria were going to be employed in choosing these consultants. I would not want to suggest for one minute that there might be a political element in the choosing of consultants in this province, or even federally, but I want him to know that we are going to want to know who those consultants are. We advise him to be sensitive about these matters, particularly when he is spending the kind of bucks he is planning to spend on consultants. Every once in a while patronage raises its ugly, greedy head. We want him to watch out for that.

Let us look at some of the other expenditures in this ministry. Here is one where we will give him a backhanded pat on the back. It is the one we just voted on, vote 1903, the real estate program specifically, the budget of the Ontario Land Corp. We noted, of course, that the budget of OLC was increased by 29 per cent, but I recognize this increase is largely due to the government's decision to purchase homes situated on radioactive soil.

There was something tangible. We could actually see that the government was using money in a way that was going to provide benefit to those people and resolve an ongoing problem that required a resolution. I tip my hat to the minister. I know this is something he took a stand on even prior to the last election. It shows that I have done a little homework. I know he was sincere in that, so I congratulate him.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. Gordon: That is fine. I appreciate the minister's thanking me.

At the same time, I do not want him to fall over me too much, because I have to say that this purchase, this increase in his budget, the purchase of those homes that were on radioactive soil, raises a question. Considering that he is now on a fiscal spending spree in his ministry, why is the same not being done to remove the lead-contaminated soil in Riverdale? Why is he not spending some money there? I am sure the people living in Ontario would not object to that. I do not think anyone would object to that, considering that we know the effects that lead can have on people, particularly on little children. Little children playing on lead-contaminated soil are at particular risk. I do not think anyone on this side of the House would object to his spending more money in that area.

I say this to the minister to show him we are sensitive to spending that is done with an object in mind, where we can see that it is doing something specific and something that is needed, but the way he is spending money on administration and on consultants in his ministry is completely uncalled for.

It brings me back to the theme I am trying to develop, that what the people of Ontario want from their elected people, their governments, is what we call fiscal accountability. When the government takes money out of my pocket each day, either through the taxes that are deducted from my paycheque or the money I give to the government whenever I buy something, we want to know he is treating that money the same way as I would treat it if it were still part of my budget. I say "if it were still part of my budget" because once he gets it, it is not part of my budget.

If this government is going to be like most typical Liberal governments and take the attitude, "We know what is best for you; we are going to spend the money the way we think it should be spent, and you people should be happy because our philosophy is we do what is good for you"; instead of asking, "What would you like us to do?" then the minister should go back, take another look at this budget and ask: "How can we spend the kind of money we are spending on administration? How can we spend the kind of money we are spending on consultants and advertising? How can we afford to hire 217 more people in this ministry alone in this year?"

1620

What people want from their governments is not only to lower the deficit, but also to be as lean as possible. If they are not, it means I do not have the money to spend, the government has it, and I know the government will spend it the way it wants to spend it. Often, that does not make me happy.

On the other hand, I point out to the minister that we on this side of the House have no problem with justifiable increases, particularly increases in his budget that are going to be spent specifically on building more apartment units, more homes in this province for those who need those homes. That we support.

We hope the minister will continue to see housing as a component of both economic and social policy. A rational housing policy can contribute to both social justice and economic prosperity. There need not be a contradiction between liberty and equality. What the minister is asking for does not contribute to either in our view.

The minister talks about housing the needy. I listened quite carefully when he was talking about that. Yet if we look at all the programs throughout his estimates, we see his ministry has increased administration costs in all programs by 62 per cent. I cannot for the life of me figure out, taking all programs together in the estimates of his budget this year, where the increase is 62 per cent for administration, for pushing paper, how the government is going to build more apartment units or to help provide housing for the needy. A 62 per cent increase in administration costs means it is up by $16,376,900 over 1985-86. That could provide a lot of middle-income and lower-income housing in this province. Surely the minister can find a way to cut that back.

A lot more of the need could be met if this minister would assign priority to creating supply, indirectly as well as directly. The much-vaunted Renterprise program is the minister's answer to provide supply. I am certain the minister is aware of the problems brewing in this program. I am not going to quiz him on that, but I am sure he is aware of those problems. I would like to talk about them for a minute.

The cost of labour and materials has increased by 25 per cent in the past year. Proponents involved with this program are saying to me that they cannot afford to continue in the program without further assistance from this government. In Toronto alone, 500 proposed units may never be built because of rising costs.

That is why it gives us pause when we hear the minister talking about the number of units he says he is going to bring on this year. It is one thing to say he has the applications in hand. It is another thing to say he has sat down with people. When we talk to people, not only in Toronto but also throughout Ontario, and they tell us the kinds of increased costs they are facing, it shows there is a need to re-examine that whole program.

As the Minister of Housing he is well aware that, in the opinion of many experts in the area of housing, the one major impediment to rental accommodation is cost. Where are his programs that will help lower building costs? Where are the innovative ideas to cut construction costs? Where are his supply side incentives? We do not see them. We think this is an area on which he should spend some time. Given the kind of people who are working in the ministry, I am sure that will be done. That is an area that requires more consideration.

I am sure the critic for the New Democratic Party could talk endlessly on the next topic I am going to raise. I am just going to brush over it or pass over it for a minute.

While Bill 51 was in committee, some tenant activists commented that this bill simply transfers money from the tenants' pockets to the landlords' pockets and it does not really do anything to increase the needed supply of apartment units in this province. The minister will recall we pointed out to him that the major developers in this province did not promise to increase the housing supply even at the upper end. We all know at the upper end of the apartment rental business, when those kinds of apartments are built, the cost of renting one of them is so exorbitant that a middle-income person cannot afford it and a lower-income person cannot afford it. It will be 15 or 20 years before those units become affordable housing units. We told the minister this bill was not going to add more housing in this province.

We have had a fair amount of empire-building going on in the ministry in the past year and that is what concerns us. We do not think empire-building really helps those people who need housing in this province. It does not help the needy. It does not help those people who have affordability problems. We know there are 200,000 people in this province who need better accommodation. We know at least 40,000 require immediate social housing. We do not think building an empire in the Ministry of Housing is the way to build more.

As I pointed out the other day, we are currently dealing with a crisis in housing in this province. In Toronto at this very moment, there are not many more than 450 vacant units, and at what price? In London, a city of 290,000 people, there are 270 vacant units. That area is often held up as having a fair number of rental units available. I find it hard to believe when I read a figure like that. Maybe somebody in the Ministry of Housing will correct me and that will help me. We all want to learn.

I could go on and on stating those appalling statistics. We say to the minister, "You are the minister. The buck stops at your desk."

Supply and affordability are the key problems in this province today. These are issues that ought to deserve the utmost priority from this minister and his ministry. Unfortunately, the lack of political will and leadership being demonstrated by this government means the waiting list for social housing will only grow longer. It means those earning less than $19,000 a year will continue to pay up to 36 per cent of their income towards rent. It means the wealthy will continue to enjoy the protection of rent controls. Half of those people earning more than $41,000 a year pay 15 per cent of their income towards rent. These are the people who enjoy the minister's protection.

Perhaps today has been a revelation for the minister. He has come face to face with what I would call the monolithic bureaucracy he heads. I hope he finds it within himself to take control of this ministry, because it is out of fiscal control. Given the circumstances we have just outlined, it will be very difficult for him and his ministry to get the programs he wants to see in place.

1630

I would like to take this opportunity to ask a question of the minister concerning the community housing side of this vote. I would like to know what the current status is of the granny flat program for seniors. I would also like to know how successful it has or has not been. How much additional funding will he allocate to this program? Is it considered a priority by the minister?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the honourable member for his long and detailed comments. I will glance back at Hansard and learn a lot from what he said. I do not intend to comment on what he has stated. However, I do want to explain why we have increased our staff. The member must realize we have increased our programs tremendously. What bothers me from day to day in this House is the impression left by members that when we came across on June 26, all of a sudden, all available and affordable rental units disappeared; that immediately, in the course of our taking over as the government, there were no longer any available, affordable rental units across the province.

It is unproductive to harry about what the cause is, where the neglect is or where the bankrupt ideas, lack of programs or lack of initiatives were. That is counterproductive. We moved forward to put in place programs that could bring about affordable rental units for those in need. It did not come overnight. Realizing there was a problem, we addressed that need.

Of course, new programs require new management -- additional management more than new management. I found there were good civil servants with good ideas within the Ministry of Housing. It is like the gold in the backyard. We go prospecting every day looking for gold and it is right there in the backyard. We just have to start digging and tapping it. We found lots of resources there. What we needed were more support staff and support ideas. We increased our staff, but in comparison to the programs we put in place it was not a very great increase. Some took place in Sudbury, in Thunder Bay and in the north. Each day I hear members in the House asking, "When are we going to do something about the north?" That is what we have done. We have increased our staffing there, not for the sake of increasing but to address needs there.

I thought I should make some comments about the things the member said, lest one may think nothing was done or we did it just because we felt that we had an American Express or a Chargex card with which we could go out and charge it.

The member mentioned a very important thing. He talked about information and what we are doing; why we are spending so much money in that line budget. It is important not only to put programs in place but also to let people know the programs are there. We intend that they be used so that they will address those needs. One that comes to mind very readily is the Ontario home renewal program. I asked the staff not only to create new things but also to look at things that were not being used. Instead of spending the government's and the taxpayers' money wildly, I asked them to look at things that were there and were not being used, things that were dormant but would be very active if we reactivated them.

The Ontario home renewal program was a splendid example of that. A minimal amount of effort was needed. All that was needed was to let people know it was there and to start using the program again, and if it could not be used, just to recycle certain areas that were needed. That is why I believe information is important. It is not enough just to have programs; people have to know they are there and know they can be utilized.

The member asked about the portable living units for seniors program, affectionately known as the granny flats, which is taken from the Australian concept. The program was put in place on a demonstration basis of 12 units. It was intended to explore the applicability of the concept. So far, we feel the demonstration program has been very successful. As with any demonstration program, it is intended to find out where the cracks are, get the cobwebs out and see whether the program can work. Some of the problems we anticipated at the community acceptance level happened, but a tremendous number of people were asking for those demonstration programs in their communities.

So far, we have not yet evaluated the program to find out the direction we will be going. That will be determined as soon as we sit down to evaluate it. The future funding that will be put into it will be largely dependent on the evaluation of the program. The program evaluation the staff was instructed to do should not run more than about six or nine months. Within that time, I will be able to tell members more about where we are going, how much money we will putting into the fund and the areas in which we will be increasing the granny flats, if we continue the program.

Mr. Shymko: I want to refer to the aspect of vote 1904 that deals with housing policy and program development, particularly development in the private sector. The minister may be aware of concerns I have expressed in the past. I would like to hear further clarification of the issue and the present policy to introduce a rent registry that will eventually be binding on 300,000 rental units in the private sector in buildings with six or fewer units.

According to the minister, unless there is a policy on registry that is universally applicable to all rental units, be they basements, bachelor rooms or flats, he will face a constitutional challenge in the Supreme Court.

It is my understanding that the present policy is limited to the 18,000 residential buildings containing more than six units, as indicated in legislation that was recently passed. The minister publicly stated that even though it is limited to those 18,000 buildings with six or more units, "Complexes that contain six or fewer rental units will be brought into the registry at a later date to be prescribed."

What is the time frame for the eventual expansion to include these 300,000 units in buildings with six or fewer units? Is there such a time frame? Does he reiterate that he will have to proceed in that direction according to the present Constitution or else he may face a challenge? Does he realize that small landlords with fewer than six units have been urged to file voluntarily the information respecting any rental of their properties? They are not bound to do so, but they have been told they can and should do this.

1640

Does he realize that 25,000 units in the city of Toronto alone -- I refer to units such as basements, bachelor rooms and flats -- will be pulled off the rental market by small landlords who will stop renting these units because of what they perceive and have indicated they consider to be the intrusive nature of Big Brother government's registry requirements?

If we have 25,000 units removed from the rental market in the city of Toronto, and possibly 125,000 to 150,000 units in Metro Toronto, what is the cost per unit and what is the government planning to do if this happens? As he knows, this will hurt the vast majority of tenants, such as pensioners, who rent single rooms and flats. It will hurt single parents and low-income earners, whose homes will be taken off the market, thus depriving them of what is currently very affordable housing.

It will also, in my opinion -- and I ask the minister whether he shares this opinion with me -- hurt the middle-income earners, the individuals who rent out a flat. They are mainly working-class people who do not buy stocks and do not have investments in huge real estate deals. They have their little private home and they rent out the basement, a room or two or a flat. These are people of modest income and they will be hurt because of this fear of an intrusion by an obligatory registry. The supply of affordable housing for our needy citizens obviously will shrink.

Is there any policy to replace the 25,000 units that will be pulled off the market in Toronto? Is there any policy to look at the cost of that? Who will replace them, at what cost and at whose cost? The implications are there. They are very serious. They have been raised already. People talk about it. I have spoken to small landlords who rent out their basement and they say: "If the registry comes in, there is no way I will follow that. I will simply not rent that unit."

Has the minister looked into this whole area? I would like to have some clarification of the present policy or the program development people's views on how this will affect the private sector in a very important area that will hurt many people.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Maybe the honourable member did not understand the rules that were laid out before. I will explain to him that it was agreed upon that we would deal with the votes vote by vote, 1901, 1902, in sequence that way. The question he raises is under vote 1905.

Mr. Shymko: I do not think I have broken any rules. If I had, the Chairman would have interrupted. Have I, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I did not say he had broken the rules. I said he had not followed them.

Mr. Shymko: That is the same thing. Mr. Chairman, I am being accused of breaking the rules. I would like to hear the answer instead of diverging into this egotistic --

Hon. Mr. Curling: If the member will give me a chance to elaborate, I would ask that we address the matter in vote 1905.

As he was asking when we were going to include those units, it came to mind that the honourable critic suggested I should be very cautious how I increase staff with the tremendous number of programs we are bringing on stream. He said I should not feel I have a carte blanche privilege to just increase staff. One of the reasons we have set up our program in a timely way is that we can accommodate it in a workable and practical manner.

I hope the member speaks to his critic from time to time and we can, as I would say, sing from the same hymnbook, if he uses a hymnbook. We are fiscally responsible --

Mr. Shymko: Could the minister develop what he means by hymnbooks and so on? Is he insinuating that I do not go to church or something?

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Thank you very much. Anyway, I would ask that I be allowed to answer that matter in detail on vote 1905, where I know it will be raised again and his concerns will be addressed.

Mr. Shymko: With all due respect to the convoluted eloquence of the minister, I believe I quoted the vote 1904 item that speaks of a housing policy and program development for the private sector. If the minister takes a look at the estimates book, he will see a direct quote and a reference to that.

I do not think I am out of order. I think he can answer easily. At least, I think he has the information and the ability to answer the concerns I have raised. If the minister feels that he needs lengthy consultation with his staff, that he requires perhaps a few more hours or a few more days to respond adequately to the concern I have raised and that he will be responding under vote 1905, that is fine. It is just that I am here today and I do not know whether I will be here when he discusses this issue on vote 1905.

I am sure he is capable of answering. My questions are very simple. They are clear; they are precise; they are not complicated. I would appreciate a clear, simple, precise answer to these concerns.

Hon. Mr. Curling: As I said, the rent registry the member speaks of falls under vote 1905. I could deal with it then in detail. If the member is not here, I will send that answer to him when we cover vote 1905. I do not expect --

Mr. Chairman: Order. If the member for High Park-Swansea is asking questions that relate to the rent registry and have no connection with the two items under vote 1904, the minister is quite correct and the member would be out of order.

Mr. Shymko: I value your judgement and I know you are well versed in the rules of the House. I spoke for 10 minutes or so and you did not intervene or interrupt. Normally, if there are no interruptions from the chair, I would assume my questions and comments are in order. If, in your wisdom, you feel it should be under a different vote, my question is on the record and I am most intrigued to hear what the reply from the minister will be.

I think he is playing a legalistic game about vote 1905 because he does not have the answer. I sympathize with him that he does not have the answer. If he requires more time, I will be more than willing to make a special effort to be here and to listen to the response from the minister, but I will not repeat my questions and state my concerns again because they are on the record.

Mr. Reville: That was an amusing diversion. I am always glad to be of assistance to the member for High Park-Swansea. He assures me that he is a working-class Conservative and he alleges that he has a social conscience. I do not believe that comes under vote 1905 or 1904.

1650

What comes under vote 1904 strikes me as perhaps the most important function of the Ministry of Housing, the community housing section, which deals mainly with three subissues. One is the creation of new affordable housing supply. There are the operations of the portfolio of some 84,000 units by the Ontario Housing Corp. and the development and implementation of various housing policies that have as their objective the protection of housing stock. Not much is said about the latter in the minister's speech.

I am curious that the vote that involves the most money has inspired the shortest preamble by the minister. He has confused me in that regard. The opening statement was only 14 pages long. Perhaps that happened because last week I was trying to predict how long the succeeding opening statements would be. The minister has tricked me on this one.

There are a number of advantages to being the Housing critic for the New Democratic Party. One is that we have much better policy to talk about than either of the other two parties. Another is that I get the benefit of, first, the minister's remarks and then the remarks of my colleague the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), and in this case some remarks from the member for High Park-Swansea. It gives me an opportunity to collect the little thoughts I might have and to prepare wonderfully rhetorical remarks to share with the minister. Of course, I have done that.

The minister has not shared with us today stuff we have not heard before. I presume it is always possible during estimates that everything we hear we have heard some time previously during the year. The recitation of the wonderful job the Ministry of Housing is doing in the community housing section is indeed a wonderful job about which we have heard many times since the assured housing policy was announced in December 1985.

The member for Sudbury spent a lot of time doing some number-crunching as he looked at the ministry's estimates. I do not know that I totally agree with all the figures he shared with the Legislature and with the minister, but there is no question that under every vote there is a significant increase in expenditure by the minister. I am unlike the member for Sudbury --

Mr. Wildman: Good.

Mr. Reville: I am unlike the member for Sudbury; and unlike the member for Sudbury I object less to the increase under some of the votes than the proportion of the increase vis-à-vis one vote to another. Let me go back at that, because it is fairly mystifying. I have mystified even myself with that most recent group of sentences.

The community housing vote, 1904, shows an increase of about 43 per cent. It is an $86-million increase in the program on last year's figure of $198 million, for a total of $284.5 million. It is good to see a 43 per cent increase. It would be better to see a much bigger increase. When compared to the increase in the Ontario building program, the increase in community housing is insignificant. It is 166 per cent under vote 1902, which we are not talking about now, but for purposes of comparison I would like to mention it and beg the indulgence of the chair to do that briefly.

The minister has announced over and over again during the course of the past year allocations for nonprofit housing and for private sector subsidies that, when added together, indicate a significant effort over and above those we have been used to in Ontario. This is obviously necessary. The problem that we are trying to solve in Ontario and that the minister and the Ministry of Housing are addressing in part has been a long time developing. There is no question that the problem cannot be solved instantly. There is also no question, at least in my view, that the increased effort in community housing by the Ministry of Housing is not nearly adequate.

On a number of occasions we have heard about Project 3,000. This is an additional 3,000 units about which the minister says he is extremely proud. I suggest to the minister that had he not announced Project 3,000, there would have been a mutiny in the Rent Review Advisory Committee and the minister would not have got any tenant support for Bill 51 from the members of the advisory committee.

The motivation for Project 3,000, however, is not very important to me. I am glad to see it is there. I note that the city of Toronto, on the initiative of my friend, Alderman Barbara Hall, is prepared to try to get 1,000 of those units and lead a joint venture. The Toronto Non-Profit Housing Corp., with the assistance of the alternative housing subcommittee, is prepared to join with church groups and other agencies to try to deliver 1,000 of the minister's 3,000 units. That will be a significant help in delivering those units. I remain concerned that in terms of a delivery strategy for the balance of the units, it may be difficult to get the additional 2,000 units on stream in the next year.

My concern about the delivery capability and the role of the minister and the ministry in helping develop a delivery capability is that it has not been emphasized a great deal in any of the documentation I have seen from the Ministry of Housing. Development groups in Ontario have not had a lot of experience in delivering housing for the hard-to-house; nor has anyone anywhere in the world as far as I am aware. It behooves the government of Ontario, through the Ministry of Housing, to be very proactive in helping groups to develop their capability to put not only the hardware but also the software on the ground; that is, not only buildings but also programs of support that will help people find meaningful and hopeful lives inside the buildings.

This is not a criticism of the Ministry of Housing as such, because as I said, I do not know that anybody has a lot of experience in this regard. There has been some useful work done. There have been some pilot projects in which some lessons have been learned. I know those who have learned the lessons will be happy to share them with the ministry because the objective is to get appropriate housing on the ground and people in the housing as quickly as we can. If we do not do that, the pressure on the hostel system is going to continue to grow and the hostel system will continue to be misused. It is clearly being misused now as a form of permanent housing. That is not the point behind emergency shelters; they are ill suited to being permanent housing and to trying to deal with the populations they are trying to deal with.

1700

I realize there is another overlap here with the Ministry of Community and Social Services, but there are gaps in our emergency housing menu in terms of the needs for emergency housing for families not being adequately met. Currently and in the short term, the Ministry of Housing should be talking to the Ministry of Community and Social Services about how to deal with the need for more emergency beds for families.

There is also a need for interval, second-stage or transition housing. It is described by all those names. One of the dilemmas and one of the ironies is that if interval, transition or second-stage housing were to be developed in greater numbers, the program would not be able to meet its objectives particularly well, because there is nowhere for people to be in transit to. The shortage of affordable housing means that people must stay in transition housing permanently, which is a misuse of transition housing.

It is something that is of increasing concern, because our society has now realized it is inappropriate and unhealthy for a woman to stay in a household in which she or her children are being battered. The values of society have changed to the extent that we have now created an expectation that if a woman and her children are being beaten by their husband and father, society thinks it is appropriate for them to leave the family home and seek a better life elsewhere.

That was not always the case. There was, and there still is in some circles, a reluctance to break up the family unit in any circumstances. It is a cruel irony that on the one hand, as a society, we have said that if those are the conditions under which you are living you should leave the family home and try to build a new life elsewhere, and yet on the other hand there is little opportunity for someone to do that. Quite often, the only recourse a mother and her children have is to go back to the matrimonial home in which the problems were occurring and take their chances there.

All of us understand the need for improvements in transition housing and in the stock of affordable housing in general, so that after a woman and her family have been able to stabilize their lives somewhat in a transition atmosphere, they can go back into the marketplace and find accommodation that is both decent and affordable. That is not the case anywhere in Ontario in 1987, and that is an objective. There is no question that we have to turn that around. The way we are going to turn it around is to increase vastly the effort of the Ministry of Housing in Ontario.

The minister points out quite rightly that the best effort up to 1986-87 was 10,000 units in 1975-76. What the minister does not say is that, even while Ontario is increasing its contribution to the housing supply of the province, the federal government is reducing its effort and in net terms we are not that much farther ahead. While the behaviour of the federal government is not the responsibility of the Ontario Ministry of Housing, the fact that it is reducing its commitment to social housing means that in Ontario our net gain is less than it would have been, even though the problem we are trying to solve has increased.

The other question which has not been addressed by the minister's statement and which needs to be addressed is the relative success of the program he has announced in its various parts. Why not call it the 19,000 units? That makes it fairly simple, although 3,000 of those units will clearly come on stream between March 1987 and some time after in terms of being built. Many of the 16,000 are already under construction, we hope. One of the difficulties of getting a snapshot of how well we are doing is the time lag between the day of commitment of the units and the day a door opens and a tenant goes in. That will vary from project to project, and we will not know for some time whether all the delivery agencies will actually be able to deliver the units that they have been committed by the government.

The other thing we do not know as yet, and I hope the minister will provide this information either during this vote or perhaps on Thursday in the standing committee on public accounts when the convert-to-rent program is going to be taken to pieces, is in respect of the private sector subsidy programs on which the minister is relying to deliver about 11,000 units. I cannot remember: 5,000 convert-to-rent, 5,000 Renterprise -- the numbers are here somewhere. We need to know in respect of those private sector programs the rent levels of the units that will be rented to nonsubsidized tenants and the percentage of rent-geared-to-income that has been taken up.

The program design speaks of up to so many per cent; up to 40 per cent, I believe, can be sought under rent-geared-to-income. We need to know what actually happened in the as-built situation. Like programs of the past -- ORCL, CORSP and CROP -- these wonderful acronyms that make your tongue turn into a little spinneret, quite often we discovered that the rent-geared-to-income takeup was small indeed and the interest-free loans or grants were not utilized at all to deliver affordable housing.

There were two fairly startling omissions from the minister's opening remarks. Nothing much was said about home owners. I should have thought that a home ownership made easy type of program would be a good idea. There are several ways to deliver a home ownership made easy program at very low cost to the taxpayer. Given that there is a persistent myth in our society about home ownership and given that there are some interesting features of home ownership that are quite remarkable and attractive, I am surprised that we have not seen from the Ministry of Housing a home ownership program that would make it easier for people to buy a home.

One of the neat things about having a mortgage when you are a home owner is that as you get older the percentage of your income that you pay for housing goes down. However, if you are a tenant, the percentage of income you pay for housing goes up. That is the amazing Reville crossover theory, which I did not just invent now, but I will take credit for it. It could be examined by the Ministry of Housing. The previous government had a pretty good program until it started to mess around with it at the resale end.

1710

Clearly, the development industry does not much want the government to be in a home ownership made easy program because the industry would then lose the advantage of all those speculative profits on land assembly and what not, but the people of Ontario would sure like it. If somebody could buy a house for $80,000, put $8,000 down and pay a spread of the difference between the prime rate and the bank rate for a mortgage, we would have a lot of people in home ownership. When they came to sell their homes, they could sell them back to the Minister of Housing, who could then sell them again. It would be a wonderful idea. We could do this on all this Ontario Land Corp. land. We could have a great time. There would be such demand that the price of lumber would go right through the roof. Some of the softwood lumber industry would think that is just fine.

The other thing the paper did not say anything about was the question of how we protect the existing housing stock. It did not give an assessment of how well Bill 11 is working after six months. I am disappointed that it did not give that because I would like to know whether it works. We know the city of York decided to approve 400 Walmer Road for condominium conversion. If my friend the member for High Park-Swansea had not left, I would have been happy to mention his concern about condominium conversion in the High Park area, but since he is not here, I will not mention that at all.

Mr. Shymko: I am here.

Mr. Reville: He just came back. Is it not amazing the way these things happen?

One wonders how many applications there have been to municipal councils under Bill 11; how the municipal councils are handling them; how many approvals there have been; how many appeals to the Ontario Municipal Board there have been; whether there have been any appeals to cabinet; the disposition of all this incredible process; whether the bill works, and if not, how the minister will fix it when it runs out. That matter is of interest to me and to many others, including a whole gaggle of Progressive Conservatives who are laughing, chatting and having a great time as they wonder about the effects of Bill 11.

Mr. Callahan: Did you say a lot of Tories? There are not that many.

Mr. Reville: They are the most Tories I have seen in one group in a long time.

I did not have the Cadillac Fairview flip on my list, but I am happy to speak about it under vote 1905. I know the member for High Park-Swansea has asked the minister a question about vote 1905. He will probably come back to hear the answer to that and then he can hear me talk about Cadillac Fairview.

It is of interest in view of the fact that when the receiver, Clarkson Gordon, was trying to get the best price it could for people's homes, it entertained some double-barrelled offers from various investors. The price was so much for a rental unit and so much plus so much if the unit were converted. The investors very cleverly put a time limit on those offers. That time limit is just a bit longer than the life of Bill 11 and that worries me a lot.

I hope it is in the minister's mind, because if the receiver sees an opportunity to get an extra $7,500 per unit and decides it would be really neat if those lumps of $7,500 came trickling into the pot, then Bill 11, if it is still around, will be sorely tested. It would be time to have a position from the Ministry of Housing as to whether it thinks an extra $7,500 or so per unit is the way to further a housing policy in Ontario or whether it is just a way to replenish the coffers of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. How do we measure and balance those two public interests? We will want some input from the Minister of Housing. From our point of view, we can suggest to the minister that the preservation of rental stock is more important than a few pieces of silver in the CDIC pot.

The whole question of the Ontario Housing Corp. as property manager and as the largest landlord in Ontario is an important question to me and it is a very important question to those who currently live in Ontario Housing and those who want to live in Ontario Housing. There are very large numbers of people waiting to do just that.

By way of honey -- I will do the honey first and the vinegar second -- the honey is that I have seen, and I hope I continue to see, some encouraging changes in policy in the operation of the holdings of OHC. It is an encouraging move to see Mr. Greenspan as chairman of OHC. The interest he has in a more open process is encouraging to me. I was delighted to see my old colleague John Sewell hired. Imagine, a full-time chairman of the Metro Toronto Housing Authority; what a great idea. I have often scratched my head in wonderment as to why the Ministry of Housing would take unto its bosom a man who will clearly be into every nook and cranny in OHC and who will probably create no end of nervous days for bureaucrats.

I know Mr. Sewell believes that programs should be designed for people, not for bureaucrats. If I were a bureaucrat, I would want the program designed for me. Fortunately, I am not a bureaucrat and I know Mr. Sewell will be all over the place making sure that the way OHC deals with its tenants has a very impressive new face on it. That is a good idea.

Likewise, it is a good idea that 16- and 17-year-old parents will be eligible for housing. I spoke of this in my opening statement the other day. What is not a good idea is that the OHC portfolio has stayed the same size for a long time. I believe OHC should be building and I believe it should be building projects that are quite different from those it has built in the past. When it builds, it should build from moneys that are separate from the current social housing program. I do not think it would be useful for OHC to compete with the other third-sector providers, but I do believe it would be useful for OHC to become a dynamic housing corporation by adding to its stock, and it should do that in projects that are probably town house projects of maybe 30 or 40 units. I would really like to see that happen soon.

1720

I am worried, for instance, about the bricks and mortar of the portfolio of OHC. I assume there is a rehabilitation plan, but many of the units under the control of OHC are getting elderly and will need major refits of the services. There are even OHC projects that could use some drastic overhaul in relation to the streetscape, infrastructure and development that would have to be done in conjunction with the tenants in those projects, but there are some interesting and creative ways in which the existing portfolio could be made more attractive, could be made to last longer and where some adjustments could be made that would improve the ambience of particular projects.

That is of particular importance in places such as Jane and Finch and in Regent Park, where the projects are very large. I can also think of some neat things the minister could do with Blake, which is in my riding, that would make it a more attractive and more livable project.

I applauded before and I will applaud again the appointment of Chimbo Poe-Mutuma as director of race relations. It is a good idea that OHC is finally developing some policies and programs to deal with the multiracial demography of its projects. It is something I am familiar with, having worked previously in Regent Park, where there is a large West Indian population and growing Chinese and Vietnamese populations. The relations between OHC staff and its tenants have not always been as sensitive to cultural differences as they should have been, and as I understand and believe OHC believes they should be. It is working towards improving understanding between OHC staff and the tenants the staff are there to serve. That is good stuff and that should be evaluated and developed so that we get the benefit from it that we should be getting.

There is no question the objectives of OHC have had to change over the years. In the days after the First World War --

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member is not going back that far, is he?

Mr. Reville: I think the Treasurer will want to walk back in time to the days just after the first war, when legislators and municipal councillors were first beginning to understand that there was the need for social housing. This was just after the first war, when the Treasurer was first elected.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Why do we not give up on the next five hours and carry this?

Mr. Reville: He will remember the basis for a lot of the discussions about public housing.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is when they got all those terrible Toronto assessments.

Mr. Reville: It was in the days before the province was messing around in assessments, but it was not before the days when legislators and people of goodwill actually thought about housing the poor. During and after the first war, a group of philanthropists started the Toronto Housing Co.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That was not legal then, was it?

Mr. Reville: There was a long debate in the House about philanthropy. Many members of the Tory party thought it should be illegal. Then there was the discussion of philately as well. They thought that should be illegal, but they did not discuss the other one, which is just as well, and we will not today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: These guys from downtown Toronto are shocking.

Mr. Reville: If I could finish this point, at one time people thought the poor should have temporary housing, because as soon as they had temporary housing -- this was after they thought the poor should have bathrooms -- their lives would change and they would move out of the temporary housing into something in the private sector. They would buy a house, just as the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) did.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I never bought a house in my life.

Mr. Reville: I heard an apocryphal story that he was born in a calf pen, which is why he does not like to clean them out. I do not know whether that is true or whether that is a story about another saviour and another time.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I was born in a manger.

Mr. Reville: That is right. There were no stars at all. No one came with gifts of any kind when that birth happened.

Interjections.

Mr. Reville: I think this is out of control. The member for Sudbury said the Ministry of Housing was out of control; clearly the estimates are out of control. It is interesting that they got out of control only when the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk came into the House. I do not know whether there is bad chemistry here. I was almost finished. Members should let me get through this statement.

I am irritated that the Treasurer, who has not sat through many minutes of these Housing estimates, is now getting restless just because I am making a speech. He is thinking back to his family connections and my family connections in that part of the country and is scratching his head, wondering how I could be making this speech, because he knows all my relatives. Fortunately, they are not here and I am.

An hon. member: Are you related to the judge?

Mr. Reville: The judge and I were close. The judge was my father and I was his son. That is right.

Mr. Shymko: Great logic there.

Mr. Reville: The member for High Park-Swansea will find, the more he listens to it, that New Democratic Party policy makes perfect sense.

I am a little worried about these advisory committees the ministry is setting up, representing various parts of the province, with demonstrated experience. I find these advisory committees are a way for the minister to avoid deciding anything. Months go past and during all of that time he says he must await advice from his advisory committee.

The previous time I accused the minister of having to wait for advice from his advisory committee, I got into trouble. I thought I would try to say it today and try to avoid getting into a lot of trouble; in fact, warn him that the more advisory committees are set up, the less that will get done. One of the ways he can take activists out of the play and prevent them from developing any housing or from putting any heat on the ministry is to put them on an advisory committee for ever. I hope that is not going to happen. I would like to know that the advisory committees have limited time lines, so their advice can be taken or not and the projects they recommend can be built or not. I want to say that because I get quite cross when all our activists are put on government advisory committees and we never see them again.

In conclusion, the minister states that Ontario has a moral obligation to the homeless and that a commitment must be made to do everything possible to shelter them. I agree the government does have a moral obligation to the homeless and should make a commitment to do everything possible to house them. I do not believe everything possible is being done, although I believe that some things are being done that show promise.

I urge the minister to add to the things being done that show promise, more things that should be done that will show promise. We have the skills and resources to ensure that no one need be homeless in the province. The minister should not rest -- he should get up even earlier in the morning that he has already told us he does -- in making sure that the programs and the funding and the commitment are in place, so no one is homeless and so people have a right to housing in reality, instead of just in rhetoric.

1730

Hon. Mr. Curling: I could not have said better the things the member stated about the accomplishments of the Ministry of Housing. As a matter of fact, I am not here to praise but to do, and that is what we are doing. I know the members of the opposition are not here to praise me, but they find it very difficult not to do so and they are doing so.

The member for Riverdale made some excellent suggestions and observations. He has raised a concern about the capabilities of delivery agents of the units we are putting on the market and whether the maintenance will be looked after properly. I assure the member we have taken those things into consideration and the staff is quite aware of that. We have been working very closely with the delivery agents to make them work the way they should work. We know too that we have to work very closely with the other ministries, the support services ministries such as the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, to make them more effective.

The member properly stated that my opening statement lacked mention of other programs. The reason for that was I had hoped -- and that hope has happened -- to allow the members to raise their points, to raise questions or to sing the praises of the Ministry of Housing. I am glad I have allowed them that time in which to raise those points. Otherwise, I could have relayed all the programs and what we have done.

The member raised another very important point. While we have increased our programs and rental units, the federal government has neglected to support those programs. We are delivering more now than in the past. Before I became the minister, we delivered only municipal nonprofit housing and now we are delivering some co-ops and private nonprofit housing. That in itself, I can tell both critics, caused us to increase staffing.

I want to make some quick comments on some of the points the member made. He mentioned home ownership. As we have seen in the past year or more, a very strong market was concentrated in home ownership. We are interested in home ownership; we are interested in the people who would like to own their own homes. We have a demonstration program and we hope to look at it very carefully as we go along, to enable those people who are not in the $250,000 and $150,000 market to purchase homes in those areas. I just want to indicate that we do have that great interest. The industry was very strong in stimulating that kind of area.

The member saw where labour was rather scarce when the demand in the building industry was very great. To find more carpenters and masons would be extremely difficult; creating any more in the market to meet those demands would have given us a difficult task.

The member for Riverdale raised a point about the advisory groups that have been created or started under my regime. I was quite surprised that he took that slant. We are an open government. We listen to all people. We even asked the member himself and members on the other side for some comments so that we could bring about the best housing program we can. All the advisory groups we put in place have responded. They have sent in their reports, and we have acted upon them. Many of the groups and the members were quite surprised that we acted upon some of those recommendations. That is very unlike previous governments, which would have taken those reports or set up advisory groups that would never report.

Some people got up in the House this afternoon and commented on Mr. Grenier's remarks. Members can see we are not limited; we are quite objective in who we ask. We are not asking for people in advisory groups who support only the programs the government would like to put in place but also those who give us the other view. We act, not according to what they recommend, but according to what is best for Ontario. While some groups and some individuals have a strong philosophy of how it should go, we take into consideration all ideas and act in the best way we can. It is quite an open government.

I know it will take some time for the members across there to understand what is meant by open government. It is not only to open the door when people come in, talk and then say, "Thank you very much," shelving all those reports wherever we can, either in the machines that were bought or in the drawers; we also act upon them. We look at those recommendations, assess them and act accordingly. We did so with the Rent Review Advisory Committee, which was a historic achievement. I do not take credit for that; not at all. The capabilities and the individuals are within this province. All we have to do is to ask them, treat them like human beings and act upon their advice.

Members should not fear that we are using advisory groups to stall, take the heat off or anything else. We use advisory groups to take their recommendations, assess them and then go in that direction. That is leadership. Leadership is not jumping ahead and doing what you feel like but assessing those ideas and moving forward.

In that sense, I do not fear to talk about the Commission of Inquiry into Residential Tenancies which was put in place. We know there are needs to be addressed, and I await the report of the Thom commission. I am confident that when it comes, members will realize we have acted in the proper manner.

I notice that some of the latecomers who were not here before would like to speak on these issues at this very late moment. I will sit down and give them a chance if they want to ask those questions. We are confident we are accountable for the direction we are going and the way we spend the taxpayers' money.

1740

Mr. Shymko: With regard to the fearless statement made by the minister, I want him to know that I am just going through the replies to a questionnaire that was sent to my constituents. Mr. Glanville of 544-A Annette Street in my riding says his concern is the following, and it is the only comment he makes: "Instead of talking about Sunday shopping and labelling, more affordable rental units are desperately needed, especially in our riding." What should I answer? "Fear not"? What has the minister done about this? Is "Fear not" the answer?

Interjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Does the member want a response?

Mr. Shymko: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Yes, he can say "Fear not," because the housing policy and the Ministry of Housing are in capable hands. We have a program in place that will address the need for affordable rental housing. However, again it is not an instant thing where we will see that the problems placed before us, the huge task that has been placed before me and the staff, will be addressed overnight.

The member can tell his constituent that his fear that it was not going to be addressed after years of inactivity --

Mr. Shymko: "Years of inactivity"? Let us be fair.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Again, it is terrible for me to lay blame, but as the member for Riverdale has stated, the 19,000 units we are bringing on stream will address the affordable rental units that were not there.

Mr. Shymko: What about the 25,000 units I referred to that will be eliminated from the rental market? What is the minister going to do about them?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member knows too. I want to make this quick point. We have put all these in place, and while one wants to believe they will be built overnight, we know it takes about 15 to 18 months for them to be there. We have approved 19,000 in the 1985-86 fiscal year; the previous government had 6,000 units when we took over. The member can see that by going from 6,000 to 19,000, we are moving in the right direction. It is not enough to address that need, but we are moving in the direction of doing more and more under the five-year program of having 6,700 rental units on the market.

The Deputy Chairman: Is the member for High Park-Swansea satisfied with the answer?

Mr. Shymko: How can I be satisfied with an answer that is no answer? The attempts at eloquence by the minister are dismal. There is no answer whatsoever.

Mr. McFadden: I listened with interest to what the minister was saying --

Mr. Shymko: The member should shed some light on this.

Mr. McFadden: The member for High Park-Swansea says some light should be shed on this issue. I almost had a feeling the minister was hoping at one point a hallelujah chorus would burst into song as he patted himself on the back and told us to fear not.

I would like to deal with what I think is a substantive issue, rather than advisory boards and who is on them and fearing not. It relates to the vacancy rate in Toronto and what, in practical terms, the government should consider to help to deal with that problem.

It is safe to say all of us know of tenants currently living in apartments at very low rents relative to the rents of new buildings, for example, who make incomes of $50,000, $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000 a year. I am not taking that away from people. If they can get a bargain, they are probably entitled to get it. It is a legal thing to do. Nevertheless, one of the problems we face is that we have a shortage of affordable housing in Ontario, partly because people living in affordable units are people who could afford to own homes, to move out and thus make additional units available to the elderly and to people who need affordable housing.

I found it interesting today that the member for Riverdale spoke approvingly of the home ownership made easy program, which was introduced by the previous government some time ago. I also found it interesting to read a recent article in Maclean's magazine which mentioned that in Cuba the government is virtually requiring tenants to buy their apartment units or housing units, whether they be apartment units or small houses.

One thing that does not appear to be in the government's planning to date is a program to encourage people to buy their homes. There are many families with children, single-parent families and young families with both parents, who would love to get out of apartments to live in homes if they could afford it. As I mentioned, many of the affordable units are currently occupied by people who could well afford to buy homes.

We know the difficulty in Toronto of securing additional affordable housing units through the private sector. The construction costs, land costs and everything else are very high. Everybody who is aware of the housing market will agree that the very serious problem we are facing is that even if we were to get additional units of housing built in Toronto, much of it, if not all of it, unless it were public housing, would probably have rental rates starting at $700, $800, $900 for a small single-bedroom unit, and even well above that.

It seems to me, therefore, that one of the ways to assist in providing additional units of affordable housing is to have tenants who can afford to buy homes move out of those units, thus freeing up units that could be available for senior citizens and others who are having trouble finding units of an affordable nature.

In Eglinton riding, for example, every week we have people stopping by my community help centre seeking housing. They do not qualify for public housing but, on the other hand, they cannot afford to pay $1,500 or $2,000 a month. I can only advise them to get their name on a list for existing buildings, keep an eye on the newspapers and offer to keep their name on file in my office in case we hear of something. We virtually never hear of affordable housing coming on the market, although the odd time somebody will phone in and let us know. For many people, finding affordable housing in Toronto has become a very serious and nerve-racking experience.

I urge the minister to look very seriously at programs that could be put in place in the near future to encourage people of all ages to buy their own home, be it a condominium, detached or semi-detached home, to make available affordable housing, which today is occupied by people who could afford a home. People might find their way clear to move out of an affordable housing unit, thus making more affordable housing available to the people who have a tremendous need for that kind of housing and cannot find it today.

1750

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is unfortunate that the member was not here earlier on when we went through some of the programs we are doing. I am sure he is familiar with most of the programs of the Ministry of Housing. He asks what we are doing. I want quickly to state that first we have to protect those rental units we have; the affordable ones are rather scarce. Bill 11 was introduced to do that. The member for Riverdale stated he would like to know what would be the life of Bill 11. We are confident with our supply program -- I will come to that shortly. He also knows of our commitment to discourage escalating rents. We had Bill 7 and Bill 51, which looked at rent control, the rent review process, to maintain the increase in rents at a manageable rate.

I have stated over and over in the House about our supply program. I remember the shadow member, the shadow minister -- I mean the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell), who from time to time drops in here -- stated that no one --

Mr. Gordon: Be nice.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I was trying to be. He stated that no one will build. Now who is going to? I tried to do a bit of research -- with all the work I have -- to find out what he said. He said, "Name one of the private sector who will build." When we advertised the Renterprise program, many of those in the private sector wanted to go into that program. As a matter of fact, we had a second call. When we looked at the north, people from the north felt they were excluded. We did make a call to accommodate that.

The supply sector program we have put in place is working. The convert-to-rent program is excellent. I went to the riding of the member for Sudbury; the convert-to-rent program was excellent. I went to a school there that had been converted to rental units. It is an excellent program; it has been applauded all over. We will continue to fine-tune it, as we do all programs, to make it address those in need.

Mr. Gordon: Give me a plug now.

Hon. Mr. Curling: We know the honourable critic worked pretty hard to make sure we addressed those needs. The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) also has great concern about the seniors. He can tell his constituents that they are in capable hands, with capable staff, and that we will address those concerns as we go along. We cannot really solve the problems laid down for all these years, but I am sure, as the members have said, we are moving in the right direction. Let them give us another 42 years and see what happens.

Mr. McFadden: Briefly, the actual question I was concerned about having the minister address was about programs in relation to the encouragement of home ownership. It seems to me one of the values that has been key to the strength of our society is home ownership, the permitting of people to feel that ultimately they can own their own home and raise their children in their own home. It seems to me that is a value we should be fostering in our society. I raise it in the context of this debate because my feeling is that there are people currently living in rental accommodation who would love to own their own homes and could move out of affordable units into homes they would own and be able to build up equity in.

I was urging the minister not necessarily to come up with more programs to create more rental housing -- there are programs out there, and we urge him to do more in that area -- but to consider programs that would encourage people to move into a situation where they could afford to own their own homes. That is a value we should be fostering in our society. People of all ages want to own their own homes. I was suggesting that the minister consider, either through his own ministry or by recommendation to the Treasurer, programs that encourage home ownership for people of all ages.

Hon. Mr. Curling: The member knows the home ownership program is working very well. We have broken every record. I do not know how far back we could go, but we can talk about the way the home-building industry has been behaving during the past 18 months or two years. If I ask the Treasurer to stimulate that part of the industry, I think I would be quite successful -- I know how the Treasurer behaves -- in addressing those needs in the rental area, because home ownership is doing very well.

I am giving a warning to the Treasurer while he is here that I will be asking him to come up with a very aggressive housing strategy to bring affordable rental units to the people. I do not think we need to stimulate the home ownership industry.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We do not want to be overstimulated.

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is right.

Mr. Sheppard: Since the minister agreed with the member for Riverdale, I would like to ask him what he is doing about granny flats in Ontario. I understand the previous government had three pilot projects. Where has the present Minister of Housing left those three pilot projects?

Nobody is looking for housing more than people in the great riding of Northumberland. We have a housing shortage in Brighton, Cobourg, Port Hope, Campbellford, Warkworth and Hastings. I want to know what the minister is doing with regard to granny flats, because I have had several requests. People thought it was a super idea. Now I am waiting for this great government that the minister is talking about, which he says is doing everything for housing. What is the minister doing about the granny flats?

Hon. Mr. Curling: There are two and maybe three points to the question. First, if the honourable member had been here when I went into great detail about the status of granny flats, he would have known I talked about how we have 12 granny-flat units in the demonstration process around the province. We will be assessing those in the next six to nine months. We will be thinking about the affordability of the demonstration projects. We are looking at the cobwebs, the problems, the community acceptance and all those things that we can assess; whether we can really afford these units and whether we will get our money's worth from such a program.

Granny flats have been quite popular. People have asked for them. Within the next nine months, we may be able to give the member an update on where we will be going, whether we will go at all and whether it is practical. I hope that answers the member's question.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

January 19, 1987

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

PLANT SHUTDOWN

RECOGNITION OF CITIZENS

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

RENT REVIEW

ONTARIO FRUIT AND VEGETABLE GROWERS' ASSOCIATION

HUMAN RIGHTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOIL CONSERVATION

RESPONSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOIL CONSERVATION

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SOIL CONSERVATION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

PAPER MILL

ACQUIRED IMMUNE DEFICIENCY SYNDROME

TRANSPORTATION OF TRITIUM

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

LAYOFFS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

PLANT SHUTDOWN

PAPER MILL

AGRICULTURAL FUNDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO FUND

CONTROL OF SMOKING

JUVENILE CRIME

PRIVACY RIGHTS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HOUSING (CONTINUED)