Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Mr Mills moved second reading of Bill 65, An Act to amend the Election Act, 1984.

Mr Mills: The amendment that I am moving today makes such profound common sense that it makes it difficult for me to debate this item because I am sure that my colleagues on the government side and the honourable members in both the opposition and the third party will see the logic in this amendment to the Election Act.

In the last election, I narrowly squeaked by originally and it resulted in a judicial recount. As members know, a judicial recount gives everybody the opportunity to look at the ballots and to argue what is acceptable and what perhaps is not. I noticed that on several occasions the people had indicated that they wanted to vote for me and they spoiled their ballots by putting on the back of their ballots the party affiliation that I was representing. That caused quite a bit of grief in so far as the count went.

I know that this subject has been of much discussion dating back over many years and back into 1970 and nothing previously has ever been done to address this problem. Ontario traditionally has been reluctant to address this problem, as it thought, in the bygone era, that the person representing the riding was all important and the party affiliation was really not there, that the people elected were there to represent the people. In 1976, political parties were legally recognized throughout the province of Ontario through the Election Finances Act.

At the present time, when you go into a polling booth there is a small sign, and I will hold it up and show members. This is the actual size of this sign and it just indicates the parties that the people are intending to vote for. It is about that size and of course you cannot readily see, especially if you are getting along in years, who is who.

In the last election, I remember -- and I see the honourable member for Simcoe East is in the members' gallery there. I believe he had some sort of problem in his election whereby two candidates by his name ran for the same position and I believe -- I stand corrected if I am wrong -- that he took some steps to try to have the Progressive Conservative logo imprinted on the ballot. Of course, he was not successful in this because you are not allowed to do that sort of thing at the present time.

In my research in this case there have been at least two candidates in recent elections who have used party logos to indicate that they were members of a particular party when in fact they were not, and this caused all kinds of embarrassment and problems for the real candidate.

I think that this amendment is very good because it now requires a written statement signed by the party leader before you will be able to get your name and party affiliation on the ballots, so that is a big step forward.

It removes all the confusion. It stops people jumping up and saying that they purport to represent a party when in fact they do not. I do not have to remind the honourable members here of the last-minute problems that occurred in the last election over a seat in Brampton, where we had one candidate who was recognized --

Mr Callahan: It is a good thing that happened.

Mr Mills: That is why the member is here. Anyway, the honourable members know the confusion that little episode caused.

This amendment is so very, very good and so sensible that I am finding it increasingly difficult to get sort of really worked up and into a debating mood, because it is rather like watching paint dry. That is not very exciting, but nevertheless this amendment to the Election Act is one that really should be addressed and it should be supported.

We talk about the provinces that do this now -- there are provinces all across Canada that mark the ballots with the political affiliation. In Alberta the party name is printed following the name. In British Columbia it is the same way. In Manitoba a candidate is endorsed by a political party, registered with the chief electoral officer and then has the registered name or abbreviation of the party printed following his name. In New Brunswick it is much the same, a little different in that there is no provision for someone marking the ballot as an independent.

Newfoundlanders at present are the only ones, like us in Ontario, who do not allow party affiliation on the ballots, although in Newfoundland they still put down what you do for a living, be it a fisherman, a doctor or whatever. We of course do not do that. In Newfoundland the chief electoral officer has recommended that the Election Act be changed to allow for the provision that I am talking about here this morning, so in Newfoundland they are addressing this problem as well.

In Nova Scotia the name of the party is printed following the candidate's name, and if a candidate is not running in Nova Scotia, then the word "independent" is printed under his name. In Prince Edward Island the political affiliation is printed following the name, and again, there is no provision for recognizing someone running as an independent.

1010

In Quebec the authorized political party appears under the name of the candidate, and if a candidate is not running for an authorized party, then the word "independent" is printed. In Saskatchewan, it is the same thing. The candidate is endorsed by a political party registered by the chief electoral officer; then the political affiliation appears in brackets beneath his name.

In the Northwest Territories there is an exception. As everybody in this House probably knows, there is no political affiliation in the Northwest Territories and in this case no political affiliation, of course, would appear underneath the name of the candidate. In the Yukon the name of the political party endorsing a candidate appears under the candidate's name. Again, if he is not endorsed by a registered party, then the political affiliation of the candidate shall be described on the ballot as the word "independent."

So Newfoundland and Ontario are lagging behind in this change that makes such good sense, and Newfoundland is taking steps to right this wrong.

I close off my remarks by asking for full party support of this change and I am sure that everybody will benefit. There is a hidden benefit there about the environment, the way I see it. I know in the last election, a candidate who ran in the riding quite close to me took it upon herself not to use any signs at all, she was so environmentally sensitive. This cost that lady that seat, I feel. Now, if we can put this on the ballots, some of us might in the long term either think about messing up our whole ridings with signs or even think about a reduced plan, because after all, the whole object, as I see it, of signs in an election is to identify the candidate with a party and with the electorate. This amendment to the Election Act would go a long way to resolving the issue.

I thank all members for listening and I hope that they will support it.

The Deputy Speaker: Before I recognize the member for Brampton South, I would like to recognize a former member of this House, Howard Sheppard. Howard represented the constituency of Northumberland. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Mr Callahan: It is a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill introduced by the member for Durham East. But before I do that, I have always been a firm believer that the electorate should have as much information as possible about the candidates they are going to support in an election, so therefore putting their party affiliation on the ballot is certainly giving more information to the people.

Having said that, the difficulty and the problem is the frailty and the inadequacy of private members' hour. There has never been a private member's bill that has ever made it into legislation, other than one on daylight saving time. So what it means is, as we debate in good faith this very important issue in this House and other issues, they will never find their way on to the government agenda. If members do, they make history. However, having said that, I would like to address the bill itself.

As we all know, in elections in the parliamentary system in Ontario, 75% of your vote actually comes from the leader. If he or she is popular, it becomes very easy to run and you really are just picking up about 25% of that vote. So that, in a sense, is important in terms of having the party affiliation on the ballot if your leader is popular.

Just for example, if you were in British Columbia now and Mr Vander Zalm were still Premier, I do not think that this type of bill would be presented to the House, because you certainly would not want to be identified as a Social Credit member running under Mr Vander Zalm. I just give that as an example that once you put it there, it is there for good. You do not get it off again.

It is interesting as well, as the member for Durham East indicated, that the only two provinces that do not have it on the ballot are Newfoundland and Ontario. I will give a little history lesson as to why Ontario does not have it. For 42 years the Conservative Party ran by natural birth and inheritance. Nobody else had a chance. Of course, they did not want to identify themselves on the ballot because most of them were so well known, they had been around so long that they knew that their party faithful would come out and support them.

In fact, a curious situation arose in my riding. I ran in 1977 and 1981 against former Premier Bill Davis in my riding, and the NDP of the day, I think it was in either 1981 or 1977, put a Davis on the ballot. They did that innocently enough. They did not want to confuse the public, I do not think. In any event, up to that point in time the former Premier was always known as W. G. Davis on the ballot. But because the NDP had run a fellow by the name of Neil Davis, you could tell alphabetically that W. G. Davis was no longer going to be first on the ballot. How do you tell your supporters who they should vote for? It is easy to say, "Vote for the first person on the ballot." From that point on the former Premier, when he was running, ran under the title Bill Davis so that he could be first on the ballot.

As the members can see, there is importance to this and there are fun and games that can be played by other parties in terms of putting another name that is similar to the existing member on the ballot and confusing the daylights out of people. Particularly when you do not even have their profession on there, it makes it very difficult for the public to be aware of what or whom they are voting for.

I disagree in this respect with one of the items. I did not see it in the bill but the member says it is there. It was the requirement that the party leader sign the nomination papers of a candidate. I would totally disagree with that. For this reason I would disagree with it: We as members of the House belong to a political party, yes, but we also are elected to represent the people of our community and not to be in any way muffled, silenced or to run on the fear that if we say something that perhaps is in the interests of our constituents but does not quite sit with the party's philosophy, we could then be penalized in the next campaign by not having our papers signed.

We all saw an instance of this, I believe, in the federal election, where Mr Mulroney would not sign the papers of a particular candidate and I think the candidate had to run as an independent. I suggest to the members that that is one item that should be kept out of there in order to ensure the integrity and the freedom of members to say what they like as long as it is in the interests of their constituents.

The situation that we have had in terms of the party leadership now, I think that part and parcel of this, if the government looks at this and I think it should look at it -- I certainly was in favour of it when we were in government, that party affiliation be put on the ballot, for the reason I started out with, that the public should have access to all of the information possible to elect the best possible person to represent their views in this Legislature.

But I think it goes deeper than that. I think the importance in this first step, you might say, is there should be a looking at the reform of Parliament. In fact, if the Premier wants to set up a committee that will be meaningful, I think that is one that could really be meaningful. It may very well be at the very root cause of some of the problems that are existing in this country that Parliament and the legislative process, where a government falls if everybody does not vote in accordance with the party that is in power, becomes a bit of a sham. It means that you are not representing your constituents to their best interests but you are just simply voting at the push of a button. I think that has to be reformed. Every vote should not be a confidence vote that a government will fall and require an election.

I think there are other issues that could be looked at in a reform of Parliament as well. The very fact that the Premier perhaps appoints the entire cabinet, I suggest, is not a good democratic way of doing it. I think 50% should be appointed by the Premier and the others should be elected from among the caucus. Otherwise what you get is the gift, the golden apple that can be held over your head to make certain that you play the party line. Who are the losers? The losers are in fact your constituents, because anything that makes you less free to advance their cause in this House is to their detriment. I would suggest that is an area.

The members might even look at the English system of the caucus determining who should be the leader of a party. We saw this used quite effectively in Great Britain with the ouster of Mrs Thatcher and the introduction of a new Prime Minister.

1020

Who knows better than the caucus who is the best person, who he or she may be, to lead the party? Do the people who go out into these conventions -- and in most cases they are stacked delegates meetings -- know really who the best person is, or is the person who wins the leadership the person who can sell the most memberships to stack the delegates meetings in order to wind up with the major votes at a convention?

I suggest that the member for Durham East has certainly taken that first step, and I hope his government looks at it because I think it is important. However, he may rue the day when he did it, because in the next election he does not know whether or not Mr Rae will be popular, and if he is not, then people will just go down the ballot, and when they see "NDP" they will bypass it and go on to the next one and perhaps vote Reform.

Mr Carr: PC.

Mr Callahan: No, no, not PC. They will skip that one, too. But they will go down the ballot. There is sort of a boomerang effect to this, that if you put it on the ballot, you may well have created for yourself a ticking time bomb that may result in your being blasted right out of this House. So think about that.

But I would urge the member for Durham East not to let this die. Do not let them just pass this in this House and have nothing happen, because that is what happens around this place. As I said when I started, too often good ideas in this House that are raised, many of them on Thursday morning, never get beyond the approval of the House, and the people of Ontario, I think, are less rich as a result of it. So pursue it, but also pursue it, as I said, with a further enlargement of a committee to look at the question of studying Parliament, the parliamentary system, and whether it works in Canada.

We are so Americanized. In England it works because the English have a great tradition of not being power grabbers. Unfortunately in the Parliaments in this country and in this province and other provinces, it is the old game of you are in power, we are out of power, we want to get you out of power so we can be in power. Who wins from that? Nobody, really. I think that is really where we should be looking, at the reform of Parliament.

We should also be looking at the question of a redistribution of powers; 1867 was a long time ago, and a lot of the powers that were allocated out of sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution, or the British North America Act, no longer apply. In fact, that is part of the root cause of the problems we are having in this country, too. Instead of going around and asking people to say why they feel Quebec should stay in Confederation, perhaps they should be going around and looking at these aspects and at a broader cure to the malaise that we have in this country. I think in the final analysis, as is represented by the fact that we are all here in this Legislature, we care with great passion about Ontario, and we care with equal passion about Canada. Let's hope that initiatives like this and further initiatives or reform of Parliament will result in Canada being the Canada we all love.

Mr Carr: I will be fairly brief, but I did want to make a couple of comments if I could. I want to compliment my friend for bringing this across. I got to know him during the justice committee, and I want to thank him for bringing this measure before us. I think this particular move would have helped me last time. I come from a riding with a great Tory tradition. Jim Snow was the former member, the Minister of Transportation, as well as Terry O'Connor after him, and in the last campaign everybody was running around saying, "Who is the Tory candidate?" I was not well known, a virtual newcomer, and it would have been very helpful to me.

Mr McLean: But they sure know now.

Mr Carr: They know now, as my colleague says. But I have a couple of concerns about the independence of the process. I think a lot of people want more independent members in this Legislature. When you put the party affiliation down, you really do not know why people voted. It may be because the member for Durham East, the member who introduced this, is a great member, and he can rightly say, "I am going to disagree with the NDP on this policy, and I am going to vote independently for my constituents because I believe in it and they voted for me."

But you will have other people who will say: "No, no, it was not the member for Durham East I voted for. It was the name, the NDP portion on the back that I voted for." Right now, a member like the member for Durham East can be relatively independent and stand up and say: "It was me elected. Sure, I was a part of the party, but it was really me the people elected, so I can be independent if I want and vote against the party on this issue."

It does not happen by all three sides when we are in power, but conceivably it could, and I think that is what the electorate really wants. I think that is why sometimes there is a little bit of bit of frustration, because we try to put everything into party lines, and the vast majority of people do not fall into parties. The vast majority of people are the swing voters that on some issues might be NDP, others Conservative, others Liberal.

This makes it very difficult, because it takes away, I think, in my example, the independence of the member. Because people will say: "No, Mr Mills, on this issue it wasn't you I voted for; it was the NDP and your Premier, Mr Rae. So you can't disagree with them on that, because I voted for the NDP policy." So I think there are a few concerns in that area, and I think, as we know, the public wants our members to be a little more independent, not to toe the line on issues. They want their members to be fairly aggressive and fairly independent. I must say, having new members on all sides, that that has certainly happened in this House to a great extent, and hopefully it will continue on a little bit more.

I am also a little concerned about what may happen as a result of the options, that it may get confusing, because I know there will be some members -- for example, our colleague the member for Markham. People do not know or care what party the member is with. They vote for the man, and so somebody like that might not put his name on the ballot. People do not care. If he ran as an independent or for the Green Party or any party, he would probably be elected, because they like him. They trust him. He has done a good job for them. He might decide, for example, to leave it off.

You have a ballot where you have party affiliations, and then one member, because he wants to be a little more independent, is left off. My fear is that people will come in and say, "What the heck is happening here?" They will not know the reasons it is left off. They will think: "What's the matter? Aren't you proud of the party?" That is not the case, because an independent member like the member for Markham might want to leave it off because he wants to be independent in the way he votes on a lot of issues.

So there are some concerns there on a couple of these issues that I would raise. On the whole though -- and I think that is what the member tried to do by giving the option, to say that there are some circumstances, and it makes it very difficult -- I must say I am in favour of it, because I am proud to be a Progressive Conservative. I think certainly the last time, the vast majority of the people voted for me because of the fact I was with the Conservative Party and because of the fact that they liked our leader and what he stood for, so it certainly would have helped me the last time around. While there are some problems with it, I certainly would be in favour of putting it on there.

I believe a couple of my colleagues have comments to make, so I will leave it at that.

Mr Drainville: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to speak to this bill put forth by the honourable member for Durham East. I come at this from a particular perspective. I served as a returning officer for Broadview-Greenwood riding federally in the elections of 1979 and 1980. At that time, I had an opportunity to see the benefits of having the political affiliation on the ballot. I served in a riding that had a great number of people from different ethnic backgrounds, as well as people with a high rate of illiteracy. Having the political affiliation on the ballot under those circumstances actually helped in the process of ensuring that people were supporting the party that they wanted to support.

I have always seen this as a definite advantage. As has been mentioned by the honourable member for Durham East, Ontario and Newfoundland are the only two provinces lagging behind, and Newfoundland is on the way to introducing this into its system. So I would like to say to the House that this is something I think is very important.

I would also like to talk about a very important principle which needs always to be acknowledged here, and that is the egalitarian principle to which I think we, as members in this House, have to give our unqualified assent and support. The reality is that here we are, government members bringing forth a bill, albeit a private member's bill, that indicates our support for a principle that says it is important that all parties have the opportunity to be recognized. A government, generally speaking, or members of the government or even incumbents who are serving in this House, happen to be in a wonderful position when they go into an election of being known by the electorate, and their names are known. In some sense, there is not a great need to have political affiliation in that they have already built up a certain reputation before they come to the next election.

1030

What we are saying in this private member's bill is an important thing, and that is to put forward the egalitarian principle that says that people need as much information as possible to make their decision, to make the job easier so that their enfranchisement is something that can take effect as soon as it possibly can. When people go into the voting booth, it is clear to them the direction that they want to go and whom they want to support.

In terms of the party leaders signing the papers, I do not want to dwell too long on this point, but I really do think it is important that when one belongs to a party, that that is recognized by the party leadership. I realized, when the honourable member was speaking about this from across the floor, that he was saying there could be problems. Of course there are problems. If you are an independent-minded member of a particular party and you happen not to be getting along with the leader, indeed it can cause problems. But the reality is that the system we are part of is a system based upon a partisan party principle. If you are on the outs with the leadership of that party, it seems to me, if you are so far on the outs that the leader is not even willing to sign your papers, there is a question as to your effectiveness to begin with in serving in that political party and trying to say in an election that you are going to continue to support the policies that are put forward by that particular party.

I do not see this as a great obstacle at all, but rather a very understandable statement that each and every candidate who is running, if he or she is running under a party banner, needs to be acknowledged to be a representative of that party.

I think that touches on all the points that I want to make today.

Mr Sola: Quite a few of the points that I was going to touch on have already been mentioned, but there are still a couple left over for me to touch upon initially.

First of all, I would like to say that in today's society, we are much more mobile. Having run in the 1987 and 1990 elections, I have noticed the great turnover in the electorate. Perhaps up to 25%, maybe 30%, of the electorate in Mississauga East in 1987 were no longer at the same addresses or perhaps even in the same riding in 1990. The old argument that the candidate is well known in his or her riding and can run on the basis of his or her reputation, I think, is no longer valid because of the mobility of our society. We have people who were living in Mississauga in the 1990 election who may be in Manitoba for the next provincial election over there, or people from Newfoundland who will be in Mississauga in the next election. That is one reason it is necessary to have party affiliation associated with the name.

Speaking personally, in 1987 the name John Sola was certainly not a household name in Mississauga East. It was closer to being John Who? when I was knocking on doors. But the name David Peterson certainly was a household name, the name Liberal certainly was a household name, and I came in on a Liberal tide. Having survived an NDP tide, I can also say that it may have been fortunate for me that party affiliation was not on the ballot in 1990. The member who proposed this legislation may live to regret it, because the electorate is very volatile and the name Bob Rae may not have the same appeal in the next election as it had in the past.

Furthermore, in very many municipalities we already have signs in different languages, in different scripts -- say, Greek or Chinese -- sometimes for local colour, sometimes to help the people who live in those areas feel more comfortable because they are more adept in the script that is added to the English script.

If we are making it easier for people to associate with a certain area in a city, we should certainly be making it easy for people to associate the candidates on a ballot with the parties they represent. Especially in the greater Metro area, even incumbents have a difficult time getting access to the media. Some of the more high-profile critics do get access to the media, but the backbenchers, the critics of less high-profile areas, have a very difficult time getting access to the major media. Therefore, their own electorate gets less of a chance to hear directly what the candidate stands for, unless they go to all-candidates meetings and unless they attend some of the functions that we attend. So it is much more difficult for a candidate to show individually what he stands for. But when he is affiliated with a party, when the party name is associated with his name, then every voter gets some idea of what that candidate will represent if elected.

I support this legislation. I think it is an idea whose time has come, and moreover whose time is more than overdue. In closing, I would just like to say, having mentioned the Greek and Chinese scripts, that members of the governing party may hope that in the coming election the party affiliation is put in those scripts, if things turn out the way they did in 1990 for the governing party.

Mr McLean: I want to speak briefly on this Bill 65, presented to the House today by my colleague the member for Durham East. Yes, there has been a lot of concern raised and, very well, in the last election when there were two McLeans on the ballot it certainly did confuse a lot of people. However, the real one did come through and win and the other guy got twice as many, three times as many, votes as he should have and he made the statement that he did not realize that he would do so well, being a member of the other political affiliation party which is not represented in this House.

With regard to the problem I had when this came to light during the campaign, that there was going to be another McLean on the ballot, we had requested party affiliation to be added to it through the elections commissioner. However, my Liberal opponent appeared to disagree with that idea. I do not know why, but it did happen. With regard to Bill 65, that would certainly do away with any problem. However, we did request that our addresses be put on because the other McLean happened to be from Penetanguishene and not from Orillia, so that did make a difference.

The problem I had with the procedure was the fact that somebody could object to that being put on when there was rightfully a discrepancy or a problem that they could identify, that some people would not really know which McLean they were voting for.

So Bill 65 has a lot of merit in that it would solve that problem. The problem that I have, really, is the fact that a lot of the members probably would not be over there today if people had known which party they were representing. That has really created a problem for us. However, maybe the public across the province will realize in two or three years what they have done.

That would have maybe helped in that case. I believe it should be clear and precise which party a candidate is representing. Then there would be no doubt in anybody's mind whom they are voting for.

But that does still create a problem, as my colleague has said. There are many people who would sooner vote for somebody who does not belong to a political party, somebody with an open mind who wants to come to Queen's Park and represent his constituents without voting the party line. That has been my theory all my 15 years in municipal politics and that is the way we operated, and the way I believe we should be operating at Queen's Park. It concerns me, always has concerned me and I have not always voted the party line, because I vote with my constituents, what they are indicating to me, and I think that is the way it should be. There should be some legislation that would allow an individual to do that. I think it would be more important than the legislation that we are dealing with here today. However, that is not the case.

1040

When we are talking about identifying people, the other interesting aspect of the campaign is that when the campaign was called, I had a news conference indicating that people in the province have a great concern for the environment and I said: "Why don't we all do away with lawn signs? That's going to be my policy. I'm not going to put up lawn signs in this election." Well, my opposition did not think that was just the right thing to do. They would have their signs recycled, they would be put out of use, they would not go into the garbage dumps. I continued with my promise not to have lawn signs and stuck with that. My two colleagues had thousands and thousands of lawn signs littering the countryside and they were still there months after.

So when we are talking about identification, is it lawn signs identifying people any more than putting one's party affiliation on the ballot? In a tough election I believe the electorate is not all that dumb. I believe the electorate is very smart. I remember the time there were two Trudeaus on the ballot the same as there were two Davises at one time, and obviously the real ones got elected.

I really have no objections to the member's bill as far as putting on the party affiliation is concerned, but I would love to have seen in some way having the opportunity, the right to decide whether one wanted it on. We are really taking that right away. Some people or some parties are not very popular, and yet if the candidate has done an excellent job in his riding and is a popular candidate and if he affiliates with that party he is a member of on the front, some people will say, "Well, if he is a certain member of that party, I won't vote for him because of the party," forgetting the member really.

I will leave a bit of time for my colleague the member for Simcoe West. I know he has a few remarks he would like to make. I would just like to close by saying I will support the bill. I believe it is a step in the right direction. However, I have some concerns and reservations about it. I do think of a bill that would give members of this Legislature the freedom and the right to vote as they see fit, regardless of what party or affiliation they have.

Mr Hope: Dealing with Bill 65, I must emphasize I will support my colleague on this bill, but as we all know, most of the bills go to committee. With this bill going to committee, there are a couple of questions that must be asked. The member for Brampton South talks about accessibility, providing all the information possible about a candidate. One of the questions that has to be asked is, for those who are unable to read maybe a picture could be provided to make sure they know what the candidate looks like. Some members may be opposed to that; they may not want their picture taken to be shown on the ballot.

The other question that must be put forward is about those who are unable to see, accessibility, making sure Braille is there on the ballot. I want to emphasize a couple of these points because, if we are to talk about making sure the electorate is actively involved in the election process, we must make sure we provide the ability to participate. I am sure a number of members have had this question raised in their constituencies about the accessibility. I know I have. A person who may not have the ability to read somebody's name wants to know, has seen the person's picture in leaflets around the constituency and knows what the person's face looks like but cannot identify the name, and those who either cannot see the picture or read the name will have accessibility through Braille, which is very important.

I really want to emphasize these two issues, as we are talking about amending the Election Act. I think, as it is referred to committee, friendly amendments may be proposed that will address the issue of making sure most of the people in our constituency, if not all, can actively participate in the election process.

As the member has indicated, some people may be opposed to standing behind an election party for the simple fact that they should be elected as the member, but it is the policies of our party that govern a lot of our direction. Yes, as members we have the freedom of voice to emphasize it in our caucuses. But if we are to talk about the logo of the party, it is important that we make sure the logo of the party is accessible to all people. How we will make it accessible to those who are blind is another question we must deal with. Braille will make that available.

But there are two questions: one, for those who are unable to read, making sure that possibly a picture is available; two, for those who are unable to see, providing Braille or some form of identification so that a person can play an active part.

I do support my colleague, as I think he has made a remarkable step on behalf of the government. Hopefully it will be passed and in place for the next election, but I also wanted to make sure those issues I have raised are taken under consideration by the committee.

Mr J. Wilson: It is a pleasure to rise today and speak to Bill 65, the private member's bill introduced by the member for Durham East. I just want to follow up on the remarks made by our colleague the member for Simcoe East. I am proud to announce today that when we are talking about the real McLean, McDonald's has now introduced a McLean deluxe burger. My colleague is extremely proud of that and I just want the House to be aware that the real McLean is alive and well. It is true; there is a bulletin right here before me. I am sure the member for Simcoe East will be sure to tell his constituents this afternoon.

I do have a worry, though, about the proposed bill where it says, "A candidate of a registered party who wishes the party's name to appear on the ballot may file with the nomination paper a written statement signed by the party's leader confirming that he or she is the party's candidate."

My worry there is that some candidates, when filing their papers, may tick off the little box that I guess will be on the form to have their party affiliation, while others may not. Unless there is some sort of collusion ahead of time, we may end up with ballots where we have Liberals, NDPs, Conservatives and names without party affiliation. We may have some of the main political parties, some of those candidates who choose not to put their party affiliation. I think it adds confusion to the voter who may go into the voter box and say: "Well, there is Jim Wilson in Simcoe West. He does not have his party affiliation. Is this the Jim Wilson that has been the Conservative candidate?" There could very well be confusion, so I think the bill could be made better if it was all or nothing, if it was required by all candidates or not required at all.

My preference is that it not be required. In rural Ontario in Simcoe West we had the honourable member George McCague serve for some 15 years prior to myself and George got elected each time, five times, because he did a good job for his riding, not because of his party affiliation. It is extremely important in rural Ontario, as it is in all ridings, that members have served on municipal council or have been involved in the community. I think particularly our constituents notice more, perhaps because we have a number of local newspapers and local radio stations and we are in those papers every week reporting on what we are doing on their behalf at Queen's Park. They are very much aware of what we do as members of provincial Parliament, they are very much aware of what their candidates' records have been and they like to vote for the local man or woman regardless of party affiliation. I think it is important that we continue that proud tradition in rural Ontario, where we vote for good people to represent our constituents.

The number one issue in this past election was that people were tired either of Ottawa or Queen's Park representing themselves to our constituents or to the voters, rather than the way the darned system was designed in the first place, that our constituents and the voters of this province are represented here by us, their elected representatives. We should not and never forget that is our job, to represent their views and not our views to them.

1050

Mr White: It is a pleasure to speak on my friend's private member's bill. The member for Durham East is already an established member of his community. He has a regular contribution to the local papers, his regular column, and even so, despite the fine member he has proven to be and the popular member of his community he is, I doubt he would have been elected had people not known what party he was running for. I think this bill only makes a great deal of sense as an updating, as an informational bill. It says, "Let's get into the 20th century before we leave it."

Obviously people are denied their basic democratic values, a basic right if, when they walk into the polling station, they do not know who is representing the party they wish to vote for. Very frequently there are names, as my friend the member for Simcoe East alleges, which are very similar. Some of the members here and I myself have very common names: White, Brown, Smith. It is not uncommon not only to have names that are similar, but even to have the same name on the ballot. In my particular area we had a White and a Wyatt, which I am sure many voters might have had some difficulty distinguishing.

The reason behind not having the party name on the ballot I think goes back to what the member for Brampton South was referring to, that for 42 years we had a dynasty and the member was the member indefinitely. This is no longer the case, and I think it behooves us, as we are reforming the way this province is governed, to also reform the way people can have a real choice come election day.

It is also a matter of finances. I know certainly the more one's name is associated with a party -- it is, after all, the party and the local riding association that are financing your campaign, but it should not be a situation in this province where those who have the most money, those who can put the mail out the farthest, the most frequently and the most blatantly should be the ones who pick up the votes. There should be an association that is related not simply to finances, but also to what that person is standing for. It is fine as we stand here, but I think the time has come for this kind of a resolution to be put forward and the member for Durham East's private member's bill to be passed.

Mr Winninger: It gives me pleasure to rise in support of Bill 65. The comments by the member for Durham East I think were lucid, well informed, convincing and eminently sensible. Some members from the Conservative caucus have suggested that political affiliation might be better left off the ballot. I can understand why they might not want to be associated with their party at the present time. They may feel their own personal popularity overrides the popularity of the party in their riding and that may in fact be why they are here in the House today.

However, I think we have to remember that when candidates register to run in an election they register as members of a political party. To my memory, when the voters go to cast their ballots, there is a list of candidates with political affiliation attached to the voting booth. The only place the political affiliation does not appear is on the ballot. On that count, we are far behind the majority of other provinces across the country that allow for political affiliation. In my riding of London South, approximately 10 or 11 years ago, there were two candidates running at the same time, neither of whom was an incumbent. Both had the surname Green, both ran a green campaign long before the colour green became fashionable and both lost. The fact that both lost may have had something to do with the fact that there was no way for the voter to differentiate between each of the candidates.

When the members are elected and take their places in this House, and if they have the same surname, they are differentiated through reference to their ridings, which makes sense. So if you are going to differentiate the candidates in an election, why not do it before the votes are cast when it will be most important that the voters make an educated decision as to whom they are voting for and not just the name that may have more recognition in the riding.

I think it is incumbent upon this Legislature to ensure that full disclosure is made, when the candidates go to the voters during an election, that the voters know which party a particular candidate aligns himself or herself with and, if another candidate is running as an independent, that the public also know he or she is running as an independent and not affiliated with another party. This will certainly reduce the degree of confusion in the mind of the voter. It is a reform that has been a long time coming, but the time is at hand for the reform to be passed in the form of legislation. I would certainly concur with the member for Durham East that this is an eminently sensible move that this Legislature should be prepared to take at this time. Therefore, I would endorse the bill put forward by the member for Durham East.

Mr Perruzza: It gives me great pleasure to be able to speak to this bill which I feel is rather timely. Some time ago I think the winds of change began to blow, not only in this province or in this country but all over the world, and I think it is catch-up time for Ontario. This deals with certain democratic principles I think we should not simply neglect. I think 42 years of Tory dynasty in this province are over and I think people should know what they are getting when they are getting it at election time. I think this stifles the expression of certain democratic rights. I know there are a number of other parties which would like to be recognized at election time. Regrettably, they do not have the funds or the ability.

Mr Mills: It has really been a delightful experience for me so early in my political career in this House to present a private member's bill, and I thank all the members for their participation and some of the encouraging things they have said.

Mention was made by the honourable member for Brampton South about not mentioning the fact that the Conservatives had stifled some sort of recognition due to their 42 years, but being a kinder, gentler type of person, I deliberately refrained from bringing that to the attention of the members here this morning. I can understand the concern of the member for Brampton South, that he is glad this bill was not in order in the last election. If it had been, there might be so few of those chairs now that we would have him shuffled up to one end and I know --

Mr Carr: Having it on is going to cost you next time. What goes around, comes around.

Mr Mills: No, as far as the next election is concerned, I have absolutely no worries about the initials NDP being behind my name. I remain confident that our party is doing a great job. As the polls have indicated, 62% of the people support us at this time. I am confident that at the end of this time, it will be even greater. With all due respect to my honourable friends opposite, maybe those seats will diminish even less.

But I stand by my principles in life and I am confident that any party affiliation whatever makes really no difference. I have some sympathy with the honourable member for Simcoe East that we are here to serve the people. I think we are all here to serve the people but, nevertheless, we have a duty to the electorate to let them know what party we stand for so that they can make their decision on the ballot.

1100

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Miclash moved resolution 9:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that fully accessible health care for every Ontarian should be a priority of this government, that northern Ontario residents often have to travel outside their communities to receive specialized health care services, that travel costs in northern Ontario are higher on average than in other areas of the province and that some situations, regardless of age, require the assistance of a travel companion, the government of Ontario should: reduce the distance criteria under the northern health travel grant program from 250 kilometres to 200 kilometres; remove the age requirement for companion travel assistance; change the formula used to calculate the grants to more accurately reflect the actual travel costs incurred; expand the program's geographic boundaries to include Parry Sound and all of the Nipissing district; and make these changes retroactive to 14 August 1990.

Mr Miclash: As members of the House will know, the people of northern Ontario are spread across a vast area. I know that some of the members from the opposite side of the House have already had an opportunity to come up and travel those portions of Ontario where we have a very thin, uneven population.

What I would like to say at this point is that we do have a strong sense of our contribution to Ontario. Across the north, we have a great many examples of this and I would just like to speak a little bit about my own riding.

We know that gold mining, for example, is very important to the riding of Kenora. We have gold mining throughout the riding in Red Lake and Golden, and we have the possibility of more coming in at Shoal Lake. As well, we have a very important forestry industry, one that contributes a lot to the economy of this province. Our natural resources are very important to the province and we actually contribute a tremendous amount of wealth to the province of Ontario.

Of course, we are looking at services, services that are provided for people across the province. Many of these services are taken for granted by people in southern Ontario. However, when it comes to northern Ontario we have some particular problems and I would like to point out the problem of health care. Again, I talk about the population being spread out in a vast area and the provision of that health care.

I have been a northerner for 37 years, actually born, raised and have lived in the same town, Kenora, and have represented the riding of Kenora over the past three and a half years. I must say that I am proud to rise in this House and present a resolution today that will address some of the concerns about this major concern of health care.

Mr Speaker, you may remember, and people in the House who were here in the past session will remember, that I introduced the same resolution back in May. I was encouraging that government to expand the northern health travel grant. I must say that resolution was supported at that time by both the Tories and the NDP. What I am doing today is introducing the resolution again, a very important resolution that I can see to be very helpful to the people throughout the entire north. What I am asking today is for the members, as they did last May, to support this resolution.

A lot of people might say, "Why did the Liberals not implement these changes?" In fact, the government brought in several programs to improve northern health care services. My resolution was introduced actually to build on these successes. We developed a strong sense of momentum on northern health care issues and I feel it is up to the present government to follow through on this momentum.

I must indicate that shortly after the Liberals took office in 1985, the northern health travel grant program was introduced, and at that time it provided financial assistance to northerners who have to travel long distances to receive specialized medical health care which is not available in their home communities. The program, as I indicated earlier, provided a much-needed service and was very popular.

If I might just read from an article, this is from the Dryden Observer of 20 March of this present year and it indicates: "Most northerners agree that the province of Ontario's northern health travel grant is a popular and worthwhile program. After all, it eases the financial burden placed on northern residents who have to travel long distances to receive medical services not available in their own community." Again, that is from an editorial in the Dryden Observer of 20 March.

This program was brought in by the Liberal government in 1985 and it has assisted more than 80,000 patients. I must repeat, 80,000 people in northern Ontario have actually taken advantage of this program. In 1988, the program was reviewed and we met with both health care givers and users for their input. We found that it was a very important program, a program important to both. In 1990, again we reviewed the program and further developed a more comprehensive set of improvements, once again with the input of both the health care givers and those groups and users of the program.

The improvements that we found would be necessary were introduced on 14 August 1990. At that time, we proposed a $2.5-million expansion of the program, which included the following very important commitments:

We said that we would remove the age restriction for having a travel companion. Currently, the travel costs of companions travelling with patients are only covered if that patient is under the age of 18 years. This age restriction should be removed for a number of reasons, reasons that would allow older people, people with certain disabilities, to have a companion with them. As I said, age is not the only barrier. We have a good number of other things that would contribute to the need of a person needing a companion to go along with him.

We also reduced the minimum travel distance requirement for accessing this program from 250 kilometres to 200 kilometres. A good number of large-sized population centres are slightly less than the 250-kilometre requirement rate now. When I think of places like Kenora, Jaffray and Melick, and Keewatin in my riding, which are actually 220 kilometres away from our major medical centre, that being Winnipeg, I think of how this program could be expanded to help the people in need of that care in our area.

Finally, our proposal would have expanded the program to cover both Parry Sound and the entire district of Nipissing, again a very important aspect to improving the program.

The improvements that I talked about that we introduced would allow an additional 3,420 northerners to benefit from the program, again a very significant number and a very significant program, to allow them to get needed medical attention that they cannot receive in their smaller communities.

When it all adds up, we have made tremendous progress over the past five years in the delivery of health care services in the northern areas. But I must say that we cannot stop there. We must build on the momentum that was established by the previous government. It is now up to the present government, the NDP, to carry on that momentum. So far, as with many other things we have seen, that has not happened in this first six months of the new government.

1110

We feel that the government maybe lack attention on our northern issues and, as I say, this attention on this very particular issue is of great importance to me. We know that the NDP has a large northern caucus but, more importantly, a large number of cabinet ministers, six cabinet ministers are from the north, and I feel that there should be enough voice in the NDP government to address our concerns.

I adjourned the debate last May, and this was the debate in which I introduced my resolution to improve the grant program. The member for Sudbury East, who is now the House leader and Minister of Northern Development, made a very important statement, and I just might quote her with pride: "It is your Liberal minister who is in power, your government that is in power. If you were serious, you would have made some changes." I must say that we moved ahead to make those changes and now we are looking upon her government and herself to implement these changes. I must remind her that she is now an NDP minister who is in government, and if they were serious at all they would take a very good look at carrying on with these changes.

As I said, over those five years, the previous government did build a good amount of momentum on this issue, and what I am asking today is for this present government to follow through on that momentum. At this time I would urge all the members to support my resolution. I would particularly challenge the northern members and, more importantly, the northern cabinet members, to demonstrate their effectiveness in their caucus and in their cabinet to ensure that these most important measures are implemented as soon as possible.

Mr Martin: I stand this morning, a very willing participant in this debate and certainly in accord with the member for Kenora and commend him for bringing this forward. If, as he says, it is the second time he has brought it forward, that is terrific, and I join with him in fighting on behalf of the people who we represent in northern Ontario so that we might get a share of the resources necessary to maintain a quality of life in that part of this province that speaks more adequately to the contribution that we make to the province economically.

Certainly, the issue of health services and the northern health grant has been a fundamental plank in the NDP northern initiatives program over the past number of years. If the members will remember, the New Democratic Party travelled across northern Ontario to gather information around the provision of health services to folks who live up there and in actual fact produced a document called Operation Critical that was presented to this House not so long ago and was received, I believe, favourably by many and will probably be referred to later by my friend across the floor. Certainly, Operation Critical came as a result of a lot of the work that was done by my New Democratic Party colleagues in the north and built on a foundation in accord with what the Liberals put in place in 1985.

My predecessor from Sault Ste Marie, Karl Morin-Strom, played a very critical and important role in the development of the initial package of legislation that came down with regard to this particular issue and I must this morning certainly give him some credit as well, because not only is the member for Kenora bringing this forward for the second time, but I think it is important that we recognize that many of the members from this side of the House, when they were on that side of the House, raised this issue and played an important role.

We certainly supported the present legislation that was there back in 1985; 1985 was part of the accord period and I have to say that some of the most progressive legislation that this province has seen in its history came at that time. I suggest to members that a lot of the reason for that was because of the participation of our members in the preparation and presentation of that legislation. We supported it then and we support any improvements to it that might be forthcoming. Certainly this morning I stand in support of the resolution that is in front of us and believe that it is not only necessary but an issue of justice.

I share with the House and the member who brought this piece of legislation forward that our government does in fact have some plans in the works. The cabinet and the Ministry of Health are working on some material that will be forthcoming in the very near future which will enhance the northern travel program that is now in place. I suggest to the members that it may even be more exciting and positive to us who live in the north than the piece of legislation that we are looking at this morning. However, that does not get in the way of my supporting it.

The issue of health services in the north is a very fundamental issue for those of us who live there. It is an issue of justice because, as the member for Kenora has stated so ably, we have a great sense of our contribution to Ontario. Every job that is created in northern Ontario in the resource extraction sector produces, in fact, 8 to 11 jobs in southern Ontario. We feel that it is only right that it should provide to us in turn those services that we need to maintain a quality of life up there in order to keep our people healthy, so that we can continue to contribute in this significant and important way to the whole of the province.

Mr Phillips: I wish to speak in support of the member's motion as well. I compliment him for, I think the best term is perhaps, relentlessly pursuing this. I guess it was about eight or nine months ago that he thought he had the battle won and of course there were some events that changed that in September, and now it is back here. I think the merits of the case obviously have not changed and I look forward to all members of the House supporting it as they did, I think, when he brought it forward initially.

It is important for the House to continue to be reminded of the challenges in this vast province, and that this Legislature reflect the needs of all of the people of this province. Certainly when we look at something like the northern health travel grants, that is an indication of the need for us to be thinking constantly, as I say, about the diversity, particularly geographic diversity. Frankly, I hope that the House would support this and that the minister would move on it quickly.

The member for Sault Ste Marie has reminded us of the study that was done, I think a little more than a year ago, when several members -- actually, probably six now cabinet ministers, then members of the official opposition -- completed a study called Operation Critical. One of the key recommendations in that was to change the travel grant program. I will just quote a couple of paragraphs from it. It said, "New Democrats will fight for needed improvements specific to the northern problem of a small population spread out over large distances." One of the recommendations is to "make the medically necessary travel grant work." Then right under it is a paragraph that says, "The members must appreciate the fact that what is needed is action, not further review and study." That, of course, was a year ago and I think just underlines the need to move quickly with the recommendations that the member for Kenora has brought forward.

It is a good idea. It does closely parallel an announcement that the previous government had made and did not have the opportunity to implement because of the change of government. It closely parallels an announcement that was made in August 1990 as, I think it is fair to say, a direct result of the initiatives of the member for Kenora who brought it to the House about 10 months ago, who got the support of the House about 10 months ago. As I say, it was supported then by all parties and all members of the House.

I am here today to urge all of us to support the recommendation, to say that it is one that makes sense, that will be of significant benefit to people in the north. It is one that I think parallels some of the recommendations that were in Operation Critical from a year ago. I hope, as we vote later this morning on this motion by the member for Kenora, that we have full and enthusiastic support for it.

1120

Mr Wood: On the issue of northern Ontario travel grants, there are a lot of aspects of the resolution that was brought forward by the member for Kenora that I fully support, for the simple reason that I have lived in the north for 31 years. I am also from the second-largest riding in Ontario and the population is very thinly spread out throughout my riding, where people have to travel large distances. I think the matter that we should be putting emphasis on is health care prevention. We should be talking about community delivery, we should be talking about having people looked after locally in their communities as much as possible, because of the loneliness when they are away from home for treatment. A lot of these areas also have to be addressed, and I understand that in the next number of weeks or months the Ministry of Health will be looking at some of these areas to address them.

One aspect of the resolution that the member for Kenora has brought forward which is very difficult for me to support is the nightmare that would be created by the retroactivity back to 14 April, which was a Liberal promise, I believe, that was made during the campaign. It did not get them elected at that particular time.

As far as the northern health travel grant program is concerned, we need it. The number of kilometres has to be reduced in order to help the people of the north, because of the fact that everybody in Ontario should have the same resources as far as health care is concerned. It is very critical that more emphasis is put on people in the north, so on that basis I congratulate the member for Kenora for bringing this resolution forward the second time that he has brought it forward. As I said, I support it in principle, with the exception of the retroactivity of it.

Mr Ramsay: It is a pleasure to be standing in my place as the member for Timiskaming to be supporting my colleague from Kenora on this very important private member's motion that we have before us here today. I not only want to speak to it; I certainly wholeheartedly endorse this motion and I would like to applaud the member for Kenora for again bringing back this motion to the House.

As the members all know, this was a Liberal government initiative that was supported by the New Democratic Party. We are looking forward today to some further support from the NDP government to make sure that we can improve this program. This program has worked very well, but as we all know, why we are all here is so that we can continue to improve government programs that we develop here in this House. I guess what the member for Kenora is really asking for today is unanimous support to improve this program, because northerners need it.

Now as we all know, in opposition the New Democrats, of course, had all the answers for all the problems and challenges that are out there. We look at the task force report that the NDP had completed around the north last year -- it was called Operation Critical -- and in that report the now governing party had suggested that this program be radically improved. I wholeheartedly support that. In fact, in August my Premier had announced that we would do that, he would bolster this program by $2.5 million additional. It is unfortunate that we are not in our place to fulfil that commitment -- we wish we could -- but we are certainly asking the government of the day to do that.

Back to the Operation Critical support of the government party: They had said that they felt that if it was necessary to travel over 80 kilometres in northern Ontario, that travel distance should be supported. As all members know, right now the government supports travel of over 250 kilometres. I must point out that that does not capture a lot of the northerners who live over that distance, as the member for Cochrane North has pointed out. As a northerner, I think it is always good to point out that there are vast distances in northern Ontario. I must say, as a person who originally grew up in southern Ontario, most southern Ontario people are not aware of those vast distances that we northerners have to travel.

In the north we do not expect to have in every centre all the facilities that the people of southern Ontario do in their big centres. We are very aware of budgets and how the health care system has to be fiscally responsible, but what we have set up are regional centres, such as Sudbury, that would serve northeastern Ontario. Sudbury is the oncology centre for northeastern Ontario; Sudbury is basically the heart and stroke centre of northeastern Ontario. In fact, the quality of care in Sudbury is second to none.

But in our ridings we sometimes live more than 250 kilometres from Sudbury. In some cases, and I had a case of a constituent calling me last week, people have to make not one or two trips a year; some people, for different medical reasons, have to make two or three trips a week. So we find constituents in Timiskaming having to go to Sudbury a couple of times a week, maybe just a shade under 250 kilometres, who do not qualify for this program.

I would like to point out that until about six months ago the program kind of relaxed its administration on that. It had great sympathy for people, and I was finding that most of the grants in my area were going through. For some reason, in the last six months there has been much stricter adherence to those administrative regulatory rules, and now I am finding the people in my area are not being allowed to apply for that grant. In fact, the confusion was compounded because the doctors were not told, and of course it is the doctors who hand the grant application form to the patient. So it has caused a lot of disruption in my area.

I certainly would plead for this government to bring in the changes that are badly overdue, changes that not only do we in the Liberal Party believe in, but obviously, from the task force of the governing party, we know the governing party believes in. I must ask, when we all know what to do and what is wrong with it, why has the government not acted? It is not going to take that much to make this program become very effective for the people of northern Ontario. We know the answers and all parties in this House agree. I guess what we are calling upon today is the governing party to get off its duff, to act so that northerners have decent access to health care in this province.

Mr Eves: It is a pleasure to rise and speak, not only on behalf of our caucus but also as a northern member, with respect to this program. I want to thank the member for bringing in this resolution, which I wholeheartedly endorse and support. I think it is an idea whose time is long overdue. It has been debated many times in this Legislature on different occasions.

With respect to my own riding, being the fifth-largest geographical riding in the province of Ontario, and we like to think of it as part of northern Ontario, this has been a long fight, not only by municipal representatives who have fought for this in the Parry Sound Municipal Association, which is an association of all organized municipalities within the district of Parry Sound, which number 28, and some seven organized municipalities in East Nipissing which are also in the riding of Parry Sound. They all wholeheartedly endorse this concept that has been introduced today by the member.

As a matter of fact, with respect to Parry Sound riding, this issue goes back several years. It was on 25 June 1987 that this House unanimously endorsed a private member's resolution that I introduced. Members of all three political parties in attendance voted in favour -- not one single dissenting vote -- to include the riding of Parry Sound, meaning the geographical district of Parry Sound, and all of the geographical district of Nipissing in northern Ontario for the purposes of all government ministries, agencies, boards and commissions. Seeing as how it did not produce any action and there was a subsequent intervening provincial election in 1987, I reintroduced exactly the same resolution, which was again passed unanimously by Parliament on 28 April 1988, with exactly the same language. Again, every single member of the Legislature from all three political parties endorsed the private member's resolution which I introduced.

1130

We did subsequently receive an announcement from the then Minister of Northern Development, Mr Fontaine, which he delivered in this House on 9 June 1988, among other things including the district of Parry Sound and all of the geographical district of Nipissing in northern Ontario for the purposes of all ministries. However, we have a few ministries that have steadfastly refused to recognize not only those two unanimous resolutions, but even the statement by the minister and the statement by the Premier of the day, Mr Peterson.

Unfortunately, one of those ministries holding out is the Ministry of Health. I had written many letters to the previous Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, and I have written two similar letters to the current Minister of Health, the member for Ottawa Centre. It is amazing, the replies are almost identical. It is like I am in a time warp here and nothing seems to have changed. "It's a very interesting idea. The ministry is looking into it. We have an ongoing review of the northern health travel grant program and when that review is complete, we'll let you know."

I think it is time the Legislature acted and the minister acted on this important program. Everybody recognizes the difficulty that northerners have with respect to all kinds of services that the provincial government provides, but we are talking about health care in particular here this morning. I have no doubt that members from all three parties support this because I can of course point to the many statements. I have pointed to a few commitments that were made by the previous government, I have alluded to statements that have been made by myself and other members of our caucus, and there are many statements on record by members of the current government: "23 August 1988: 'Health travel grants inadequate, Wildman says'"; "'Health care in north shocking,' Mr Rae said."

I do not think there is much doubt that the members of this Legislature all endorse what is being proposed today -- at least, I hope they do -- by the honourable member. As a matter of fact, members of the governing party may wish to go a little further than the honourable member is suggesting today, by having due respect for the conclusions that were reached in Operation Critical, The Report of the New Democratic Task Force on Northern Health Care Issues in February 1990. Some of those conclusions are indeed very interesting.

"First, the issue of distance." We are talking about the northern health travel grant program. "Any travelling of more than 80 kilometres (one hour by car) because a service is not available should be reimbursed. To the argument that the costs will be prohibitive, we prefer to regard the added cost as an incentive to provide the service locally." I could not agree more.

What is the point -- and it has already been alluded to by a couple of other speakers -- of trying to develop, for example, a cancer research facility in Sudbury if we are not going to encourage northerners to use that facility? If we are in a way going to discourage them by not making the distance requirement sufficient enough to encourage travel within northern Ontario, then the incentive is going to be there for them to travel to southern Ontario. That is exactly, I would think, what we are trying to get away from by providing those much-needed services. We are doing some of that, not as quickly as we would all like to see it of course, but we are trying to do some of that in northern Ontario. It would be nice to see those people able to partake of that program and use the services the government is trying to provide in northern Ontario.

On the conclusion page, page 35 of Operation Critical, the report comes to the conclusion that because of "a small population spread out over large distances" in northern Ontario, they should "increase travelling clinics, improve the transportation system, and make the medically necessary travel grants work." That is again exactly what we are talking about in the honourable member's resolution before us today, to try and make the northern health travel grant program more workable.

In the riding of Parry Sound, people have perhaps been even more disadvantaged by a double standard than any other riding in the province of Ontario, because of the fact that about 25% of the population currently lies above the geographical or arbitrary boundary that is set by regulation by the Ministry of Health for qualification for the northern health travel grant program and the other 75% of the people, in the very same constituency, do not qualify.

What is even more shocking is the fact that the people who most need this service, who really cannot afford to travel for necessary medical care, are the ones who end up not getting necessary medical care because they cannot afford some things that other members and I might take for granted as individuals. Travelling to Toronto, for example, for cancer treatment is the one that comes most commonly to mind.

We have many constituents in the riding of Parry Sound who have to travel to Toronto for various medical reasons. I am just picking treatment for cancer at the Princess Margaret Hospital as one example. In a lot of these cases these constituents literally cannot come to Toronto and receive treatment because they cannot afford it, and I think that is a very sorry state indeed in the health care system in the province of Ontario. I think if it is true in my riding, it is certainly true in a lot of other ridings farther north.

I would like to address that inequity, both within the riding of Parry Sound and within all northern constituencies in the province of Ontario. It is a very, very unfortunate set of circumstances indeed. Some service clubs in my constituency, and I am sure in others, have tried to fill that void and provide transportation for some of these patients who need it, but I really think that we as a society and we as a government should be making a very, very concerted effort to address these inequities as much as is possible.

It is interesting, somewhat political at times, that the former Premier issued a press release on 14 August 1990 -- I think there was an election campaign going on then -- with almost the exact wording of the honourable member's resolution here today, as to how the northern health travel grant program could be improved upon and we could reduce the distance requirement from 300 kilometres and 250 kilometres.

There are two requirements, for those members that perhaps are unfamiliar with the program. One is for travel within northern Ontario to receive health care; the other is for travel from northern Ontario to southern Ontario to receive health care. There are two different distance criteria in the regulations right now -- one is 300 kilometres one way, the other one is 250 one way -- and the suggestion is being made, if I read the honourable member's resolution correctly, that we reduce both of those distances to 200 kilometres one way, which I fully and wholeheartedly endorse.

His resolution also goes on to include, and I thank him for that, the geographical district of Parry Sound and the entire geographical district of Nipissing. l mention "entire" because a good portion of Nipissing is already included by the definition under the regulation but the other part of Nipissing, the eastern part of Nipissing, is not. I think that is an inequity that has to be dealt with obviously as well.

When the then Premier, Mr Peterson, was questioned by the local media after his press release of 14 August 1990, he had failed to address both aspects of the distance requirement in his announcement and somewhat hurriedly instructed his staff, I presume, within about the next 48 hours, if memory serves me correctly, to make sure that indeed all parts of the riding of Parry Sound were included in the northern health travel grant program.

We have had all this commitment and all these statements by various members of all three parties, but to date we have not had any delivery from the Ministry of Health. I know that the government is relatively new but, by the same token, I presume that this ongoing review that the member for Oriole referred to in 1987 and people before her referred to, and then in 1988 it was referred to and in 1989 it was referred to, has got to be the longest ongoing review of a program ever in the history of the Ontario Legislature, because here we are in 1991 and the current minister is saying: "You know, we've got this review going on of the northern health travel grant program. We'll get around to it. It just takes a little time. We can't do everything in the first six months."

I think Dr Barkin has been over there for a while as Deputy Minister of Health. I am sure that the other officials in the Ministry of Health do not change every time there is an election, I hope. I would hope that the ongoing review has now been completed and that they would see fit to include not only the riding of Parry Sound in the northern health travel grant program, but make the amendments to the program that are being suggested by the honourable member.

1140

As a matter of fact, I might go one step further and be so bold as to suggest that we adopt the distance requirements outlined in Operation Critical by the NDP task force in February 1990 of 80 kilometres, because I really think that would address some of the basic problems that I outlined at the outset.

We are trying in this province, I hope, to provide first-class medical services as close to home as possible for northerners, and if we are going to try to encourage them to use those facilities, such as the one in Sudbury, then surely the very least we can do is make it as easy as possible and provide that little bit of incentive and in many cases much-needed support of these people so they can use the services and receive the treatment that they rightly deserve.

I will be supporting the resolution, as I hope indeed all members of the Legislature will do on a non-partisan issue. I think it is issues such as these where partisan politics really have no place in the Ontario Legislature, and it is during private members' hour such as this morning and dealing with issues like this that very directly touch and affect people perhaps less fortunate in society. I think those are the issues that surely we can rise above partisanship on and support and help the people in the province of Ontario.

Mr Winninger: Normally, speaking as a southerner I could support the resolution put forth by the member for Kenora. However, I have two major concerns. First of all, one is that the resolution may not in fact go far enough to assist northerners with their health care needs. But more important, the retroactivity provision in the resolution, in my view, is very problematic.

The northern health travel grant program came into effect in December 1985. The previous government had five full years to make the necessary changes to the travel grant program. It was only in August of 1990, during an election campaign, when an undertaking was made to improve access to health care where northerners have to travel to obtain it, and there is no magic in this 14 August date, other than that is when the former Premier of the province made certain campaign promises, probably to woo those elusive northern voters.

In any event, there are choices that have to be made with regard to health care in the north. You can bring the services to the health care users. You can transport the health care users to those services. You can offer good community-based health care right in those communities.

I would suggest that while on the one hand we have to improve access to those medically necessary services that northerners require and to provide sufficient travel allowances, we must not do that at the expense of local community-based care. That initiative also has to be prominent. Otherwise, we will just encourage northerners to travel for health care.

Certainly the minimum distance of 250 kilometres should be reduced, in my submission, simply because it encourages those northerners who need health care perhaps to go farther south, more than 250 kilometres, to get the health care that they might receive closer to home.

Reimbursement for travel certainly should be speeded up. Overnight accommodation, which is often required, should be covered. Where a patient over 18 years of age requires a companion, certainly that kind of service should be covered. People who are required to travel to obtain health care fittings, to consult with specialists, to obtain treatment and surgery, they need to have these medically necessary needs covered.

Certainly travel grants were introduced as a temporary measure until the kind of medical services required by these people was available in their own communities, and we cannot lose sight of that if we improve the health care travel accessibility. Certainly the Operation Critical paper recommended reducing the distance for travel grants, that all companions be covered where necessary and that travel costs, including overnight accommodation, be offered.

These initiatives are covered by the resolution, but the retroactive provision is certainly problematic. For that reason, while I support the general thrust of the resolution, I cannot vote for it.

Mr Brown: I am pleased to rise today in support of my colleague's resolution, and I must say that I am, first of all, encouraged by the comments of the member for Sault Ste Marie that tell us that the government is moving forward on this issue and is going to do something bigger and better. I think that is commendable and we are looking forward to that happening in the very near future.

I must say also that I applaud the member for Kenora for bringing this forward. One of our other colleagues has mentioned his tenacity on this issue, how he has not let it die, how he has worked hard as a private member to make something happen that is good for northern Ontarians. I think that is commendable.

The member, as some members may know, because not all of us were here during the last session, also presented a bill regarding highway speeds. He suggested that we increase on certain highways in northern Ontario the speed limit by 10 kilometres, and I am pleased to see that the government is now consulting about an announcement which was made that actually would have happened last August. The announcement was not made in August; it was supposed to happen in August, but now the government is proceeding with that and it appears that on some very safe highways we are going to have a 10-kilometre speed limit raise.

These are two issues brought by a private member to private members' hour that are being proceeded with, and I think, if anything, it shows what a private member can do in this place. I think the member for Kenora should be looked at by all members as somebody who is achieving something that is good for his constituents and good for the area and I think we all should commend him for that.

Dealing with the specific issue, I think the issue really is quality health care for all Ontarians. The issue is providing services as close to home as possible, making sure that we have the specialists and facilities as close to home as possible, but I think we all understand that in the distances of northern Ontario that is just not possible for certain select treatments.

We look at an amazing and I think important development in Sudbury with the cancer treatment centre being located there to serve the whole northeast, but for many of my constituents, or at least some of my constituents, it is still too far away. You still will have to go more than 200 kilometres to get to it, and I have one of the closer constituencies to Sudbury. So that is important, and I think that no matter how we try -- and try we should, and that should be our first priority, to provide the best-quality health care as close to home as possible -- I am not certain that we ever will achieve totally that goal.

I think the member's resolution and the previous announcement of government policy is a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing bigger and better things, because I have some concerns myself about this particular resolution.

In my riding, most of my constituents actually, if they are going to be served in the north, are inside the 200-kilometre limit. But I have villages in my constituency, such as Killarney, where you must go to Sudbury for health care. There is a nursing station there and a doctor comes once a week, but for anything that is major, you must go to Sudbury. Some people sometimes go three or four times a week. They travel a lot.

I am not in my own mind completely certain that the way to approach this is a distance criterion at all. Maybe it is a look at the total expenditures over a year necessary for health care. It may be the better approach. I look even at Manitoulin Island, where I have constituents in Meldrum Bay. The hospital in the closest position from them actually is 70 or 80 kilometres away, and if you have to do that every day, that gets to be a great expense and people just cannot afford it.

1150

I also look at the fact that some people cannot afford any travel. They do not have cars of their own. They do not have people who will take them to a health centre. Public transportation almost does not exist in most areas of my riding. That means you have got to hire cabs, you have got to do things that are very expensive, and I think that we have to look at providing and targeting these kinds of grants to the people who need them the most. It may be, in these fiscally strained times -- as we all know, governments do not have the money to do whatever they might wish -- that we must have a look at making sure the people who need it are the ones who get it. I think that is fundamental to our health care system in Ontario.

This might be heresy for a northern Ontario member to say, but I would really like to see this not be a northern Ontario health grant; I think it should be an Ontario travel health grant. There are places like Tobermory. Tobermory is really 15 miles or 20 miles from my riding, and yet for them to get care in Toronto or perhaps in London, or perhaps the service is only available in Ottawa, they have a huge expense that, if you happen to live across the channel on Manitoulin, you would be paid for, but if you happen to live in Tobermory you cannot be, and there are even instances of people in Ottawa who have to travel to London. While we might want to see that people all over the north have good care, it is also important to make sure that people in the rest of the province have the same privileges as we do.

I think when we look at this, the resolution of the member for Kenora goes a long way towards doing what we need to have done in this province, but I think we should be thinking about the total concern of all the people in the province, and as the government moves forward, react appropriately to the needs of the people. Let's not just kind of box ourselves in to this temporary measure.

I am proud to be supporting the resolution of the member for Kenora and hope the government will proceed quickly.

Mr Silipo: I want to rise very briefly to speak in support of this resolution. I think that certainly, as somebody who is from the south of the province and from one of the urban centres in the province, it is important also to indicate my support and our support for a resolution of this nature that tries to address the issue of equity, I think, in terms of health services for the people of the north.

As someone who has had an opportunity to travel a little bit within the north, I certainly am a little bit more aware now than I was perhaps in the past about the kinds of needs that exist in the north and the problems that the great distances between communities pose for people. I think that therefore for me it is really a very simple issue in terms of equity and in making sure that if we really believe in having fully accessible health care for all the people of the province, we need to recognize that for that to be achieved there have to be some different rules and some laxer rules for areas like the north.

Having said that, I just want to say, and this will not in the end prevent me from supporting this resolution, that I do have a concern around the last provision the member for Kenora has put into this resolution. That is the issue of retroactivity that some members have spoken to. I certainly do not see how the retroactivity could be brought about. I see a lot of administrative nightmares in doing that, but I will support this notwithstanding that.

The point I want to make on that issue is that I think it is unfortunate that when resolutions are brought forward that deal with important principles such as this one does, and which call upon all of us in private members' hour to go above and beyond our own particular partisan positions on these issues and to support them, I think it is also incumbent upon the people bringing these, if they want us to respond in that vein, not to put into resolutions issues or items that then simply do nothing but tend to bring the debate back into the partisan fold.

I just sort of put that out as a bit of a plea, I guess, for all members in future bringing forward resolutions. If we want these sessions on Thursday mornings to be really meaningful as something that goes beyond partisan positions, I think it is incumbent upon us to remember that in the way we draft these resolutions.

Mrs Haslam: Although I totally agree with my honourable colleague, I do want to reiterate exactly what he said. I think this is an important issue that I would like to support, but I have a problem when the perception is game-playing in any type of legislation that is brought forward. I really have a concern that on an issue like this, I wish to support it, but there is always a little hook in there that makes it difficult for me to look at that type of private member's bill that is brought forward. If those types of private members' bills could be looked at in that way, that we do want to support them, that this is an important issue, let's look at the issues so that we can all support them and not put time lines in and not put a hook in there like a retroactivity that is difficult for us to support because we can see the administration problems of it.

Like my honourable colleague, I think this is an important enough issue that I will not let that deter me from supporting this resolution, but I do feel that is a very difficult clause in there that affects some of the ways that some of us look at that particular private member's bill. In this case I will be supporting it, but it is difficult when those time lines and those little things are put into private members' legislation.

Mr Miclash: I would just like to thank the members who spoke in favour of this resolution, and even the members who have indicated a problem with the resolution.

Of course, as we have heard, the retroactivity portion of the resolution is the problem. Might I just remind the members opposite a little bit about retroactivity. Let's take a look at Bill 4, at what they as a party are trying to do with Bill 4. There is no problem in retroactivity there.

What I am suggesting here is that we take a look back to a portion of this resolution that says retroactivity back to when the people of northern Ontario -- I must remember the southern member for London South, who got up and showed that he is definitely a southern member, not concerned about the smaller centres. Of course we would like care in all of our smaller centres throughout the north. We know that is impractical. As he travelled the north with the member for Dovercourt, I would have thought he would have seen a little bit of that, a little bit of the fact that we cannot provide all those services throughout the entire north in our smaller centres.

The member for Parry Sound spoke to me regarding the retroactivity of this particular portion of my resolution, and he indicated that the OHIP office in Kingston is looking at many of the proposals, the applications that were put to it, and is holding them. They were sort of anticipating that this would be coming forth, as was announced on 14 August. He has indicated to me that he has researched it and has found that they are holding these applications from that date onward.

So that is where I can speak a little bit more on the retroactivity and how important it is to those many people who have travelled, who have listened to the former Premier speak on this, sort of being encouraged by his words, and have kept track of what it has cost them since.

Again, I would like to thank those members who supported this resolution and as well those who spoke against it.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Mills has moved second reading of Bill 65.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

1206

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

The House divided on Mr Miclash's motion of resolution 9, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes-37

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Carr, Curling, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Fawcett, Harnick, Haslam, Hayes, Klopp, Kormos, Malkowski, Martin, Mathyssen, McClelland, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Murdoch, B., O'Connor, Offer, Perruzza, Phillips, G., Silipo, Sola, Sterling, Sutherland, Tilson, Villeneuve, Waters, White, Wilson, J., Wiseman, Wood.

Nays-15

Abel, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Fletcher, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Lessard, Owens, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger.

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Administrator has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 24, An Act to control the private use of Cards issued and Numbers assigned to Insured Persons under the Health Insurance Act;

Projet de loi 24, Loi contrôlant l'usage dans le secteur privé des cartes et des numéros attribués aux assurés en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance-santé ;

Bill 31, An Act to amend the Representation Act, 1986;

Bill Pr29, An Act respecting the City of London.

OPPOSITION DAY

The Speaker: Members will be aware that there appears in today's Orders and Notices two notices of an opposition day to be debated next week. Under standing order 41(d), the Speaker is required to select one of these notices for consideration, taking into account the order in which they were received. I would like to advise the members that the motion by Mr Elston will be the one that will be selected for debate next week.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VISITORS

Mr Daigeler: I am very pleased to welcome a student delegation from Pope John XXIII elementary school in my riding which is visiting today at Queen's Park. For many members who represent regions in central and southern Ontario, school trips to Queen's Park are a common occurrence. For me, on the other hand, this is only the third student visit since my election in 1987.

For obvious reasons, schools in the Ottawa area and eastern Ontario make it a regular practice to observe the proceedings of the federal House. Hence, I am all the more pleased that the Nepean school, which my own children attended, has chosen to learn at first hand about Queen's Park and what the provincial government is all about.

Like other members, I am invited from time to time to speak to children about my role and responsibilities as an MPP. Frankly, I enjoy nothing more than talking about my work as a legislator with our young generation. I always try to give them a sense of their own power and their own responsibility in a democratic society. Who knows? I may even start a political service career in some of these young minds.

It is important for our schools to teach about the public policy process, and I thank the teachers who organize these parliamentary visits like the one from Nepean today.

JULIAN EASTER

Mr Jackson: It is with great pleasure that I rise to acknowledge this week's Julian Easter celebration which will be observed by many Ontario citizens on Sunday 7 April. The independent Easter date, which continues to be used by the churches of the Christian east, has become a significant aspect of the particular religious and cultural identities of those communities.

This weekend, the great mystery that is Easter will be relived by colourful services and ancient traditions, calling to mind the death and resurrection of Christ. The celebrations, however, will have different emphasis for different communities. The Ethiopian Church, under its patriarch, Abuna Takla Haymonot, is one for which the pain of Good Friday continues to characterize its life. Ethiopia today faces a renewed threat of famine and the ravages of war. It is my sincere hope that the Ethiopians' plight will touch the hearts of all western leaders, especially at this Easter season.

As someone personally with deep ancestral Ukrainian roots, I share the joy of all Ukrainian Catholics, whose church will be able to experience resurrection in a way it has not known for a long period of time. This year, the head of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Cardinal Myroslav Lubachivsky, has returned to his homeland from exile to be with his people on Easter Day for the first time in 40 years, and the Ukrainian people in Canada, celebrating Easter this year for the 100th time since the coming of their first ancestors to this country, can join with their families and friends in the ethnic homeland in the unity of love and perfect freedom of worship.

On behalf of that community, let me say in Ukrainian, Christ is risen.

ONTARIO TEACHERS' FEDERATION

Mr Owens: Today on behalf of this House I would like to welcome the Ontario Teachers' Federation to Queen's Park. The Ontario Teachers' Federation board of governors is meeting with all three caucuses to discuss important educational issues. The federation comprises five affiliated groups, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Federation of Women Teachers' Associations of Ontario, the Ontario Public School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario English Catholic Teachers' Association and l'Association des enseignantes et des enseignants franco-ontariens.

The federation acts as an effective advocate on many educational issues. It was established in 1944 through the Teaching Profession Act and has remained the main professional organization for the 110,000 teachers across the province.

I would like to thank the federation for taking the time to meet with MPPs. Input from this group, which represents front-line service providers in education, is so important. I sincerely hope the federation continues its good work in providing MPPs with valuable information, which certainly assists us as legislators in producing high-quality legislation in the area of education.

Mr Speaker, as a member of the Ontario Teachers' Federation, I know you will take the opportunity to join me in saying a special hello to Bill Sparks, the Scarborough representative of the Ontario Teachers' Federation.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Ramsay: Today I would like to talk about an issue which is of great concern to the constituents of Timiskaming and most northerners. Gasoline prices in the north are often higher than in southern parts of the province, and of course long-distance travel is often a necessity in my riding of Timiskaming, with little or no public transportation available.

Recently a poll was taken in the Kirkland Lake local paper, the Northern Daily News, where readers were asked to send in a coupon if they felt gasoline and oil prices should be investigated. Some 453 coupons were received, which represents 8% of the readership.

As of 27 March, gasoline prices were as follows: in Kirkland Lake, 58.3 cents a litre, in New Liskeard, 57.7 cents and in Timmins, 56.8 cents.

Last December the Minister of Energy commented that higher gasoline prices in the north could be attributed to the higher cost of transporting the fuel to northern gas outlets. Timmins is 210 kilometres north of New Liskeard and it has cheaper gas. It is obvious that the minister's answer is not good enough, and the people of my riding of Timiskaming demand this to be corrected right away.

MUNICIPAL-INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY FOR ABATEMENT

Mr Runciman: I rise to draw to the attention of all members a weakness in the wording of the Ministry of the Environment's municipal-industrial strategy for abatement. This matter was brought to my attention by Iain Grant of Brockville.

While my party supports MISA, which is designed to improve the quality of our lakes and rivers by limiting the amount of various chemicals being dumped into our sewers, I draw to the attention of the House the regulation concerning discharge to combined sewers.

The regulation states that the discharge of phosphorus cannot exceed 10 milligrams per litre. However, scientific analysis proves that phosphorus present in normal adult urine ranges from one to two grams per litre over a 14-hour period. This means that everyone who answers the call to nature in a public or industrial building is contravening the MISA regulations by a factor of 200.

Does this mean that managers will be forced to limit the volume of liquid consumed by employees during working hours, thus minimizing the need for kidney flushing? Will coffee breaks be discontinued, only to be supplanted by quick trips home for a pause for the cause, since the regulations do not apply to private residences? Perhaps industries will be forced to lock their lavatories.

This revelation would be merely amusing if it were not for the serious penalties proposed for both individuals and corporations, fines of $25,000 per day. I encourage the Minister of the Environment to amend the MISA regulations so that phosphorous discharges remain limited but do not result in unrealistic penalties being levied against the citizens of this province.

1340

MEMBERS' CONDUCT

Mr Fletcher: On 26 March 1991 the member for Mississauga West made a complaint about my householder. The member read a part of the question from my householder. He did not read the whole question. I feel that the omission of this part of the question created an inaccurate account of my householder. I hope that the member for Mississauga West was not intentionally trying to mislead or deceive anyone.

Yesterday the member for Scarborough North mentioned that he was upset because the standing committee on the Ombudsman had adjourned early. The member failed to mention that the committee was to reconvene at the Office of the Ombudsman so that committee members could observe the goings-on of that office and they would learn something about it. I hope that the member did not intentionally intend to mislead or deceive anyone.

The official opposition is a party with no direction, little credibility, no leadership and obviously no future. The results of 6 September were not a fluke; they were a message that the people of Ontario do not want misleading or deceitful politicians any more.

As a rookie MPP, I have learned much, but I hope to learn so much more. I do not want to become as the members sitting opposite.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr McGuinty: The following is a list of questions and answers collected during my acquaintance with the Minister of Energy. By sharing these, I think we will all gain a keen insight into the minister's productivity during the past seven months.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP promise to phase out nuclear generation?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP promise to prohibit Ontario Hydro from exporting tritium?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP promise to ban all energy from waste facilities?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP promise to purchase all uranium from Elliot Lake?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister carry out the NDP promise to adopt a 20% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2005?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP commitment to reduce carbon emissions in new cars?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP commitment to establish a rebate program for fuel-efficient cars?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP commitment to impose a carbon tax on fossil fuels?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: Will the minister fulfil the NDP commitment to increase hydro buyback rates paid to private power producers?

Answer: It is under review.

Question: What does the minister propose to do about declining block rates for Hydro's commercial customers?

Answer: It is under review.

I could go on and on, but I understand that the House must adjourn at 6 o'clock.

WOMEN IN POLITICS

Mrs Witmer: As critic for women's issues, I was shocked this morning to listen to one of the Premier's inner circle of advisers on Canada AM in a panel discussion about the appointment of the first female Premier in the history of this country, Mrs Rita Johnston.

Gerry Caplan, a long-time NDP spokesperson, stated, "Conservative women don't advance the cause of women at all." In fact, he went on to say, "If you are woman in politics, unless you take a different position, then you may as well be a man."

I take offence at Mr Caplan's comments. I believe women have every right to take any position they want in politics. I find it ironic that these comments were made by a member of the party which purports to be the advocate of women in Canada, which is very proud, as we all are, of the record number of women in this provincial cabinet. Surely Mr Caplan must recognize the sheer symbolic significance of the first woman being appointed as a first minister in this country.

I believe that every female member in this chamber represents and indeed advances the cause of women in Ontario, and I believe that comments such as this are an insult to all women.

JOHN YOVANOV AND ARCHIE MCCOY

Mr Abel: It is with great pleasure today that I rise to pay tribute to two very special people from the town of Flamborough in the riding of Wentworth North, John Yovanov and Archie McCoy.

John Yovanov has been awarded the Joe Fletcher Memorial Trophy as the Wentworth agricultural community's citizen of the year. As a successful farmer and a Wentworth school board trustee, John's service to agriculture has stemmed chiefly from his recognition that farmers need to help people of the urban public gain an understanding of agriculture, the source of their food supply. He has worked steadfastly to that end for many years.

Archie McCoy has been awarded the first Flamborough Corporate Citizen of the Year award. Archie, like John, is a well-known farmer in the area. Besides producing one of Ontario's top dairy herds of Holsteins and Brown Swiss, Archie is also owner of McCoy Industries Ltd, the largest privately owned die cast foundry in the province. A confirmed environmentalist, Archie has spent over $1 million to ensure clean air emissions from his foundry. His landscaping efforts have won him the Trillium Award and his farm operations are in the forefront in soil conservation and environmental improvements.

In conclusion, I would like to say that John Yovanov and Archie McCoy are both outstanding examples of good citizens. While they prospered by hard work and business practices, they have not lost touch with the people in their community. We are all very proud to have John and Archie in our community.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I request unanimous consent for statements from all parties on International Refugee Rights Day.

Agreed to.

INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE RIGHTS DAY

Mr Cousens: Many questions have to be answered, and if only we took the time to ask a few of them. How many refugees are there in the world today? How many of them are suffering for lack of food, lack of clothing, no home, no roof, no health protection? How many other people are refugees just because of the war that is on in their country, such as the Kurds on the borders of Turkey? How many refugees are there coming out of Africa right now? How many residents are there in Ontario and in Canada who have come here as refugees, come here as a place to live and establish their homes and make this their place to live?

I am pleased that this House today will at least pause for a few moments to reflect upon the importance of International Refugee Rights Day. It is an important time for all of us to pay our respects to refugees all over the world, remembering that governments cannot solve the problem by themselves but that all of us as citizens of the world have a responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I see this as an important statement.

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat? I agree entirely with the member for Markham. I believe this could be an important occasion. I think it requires a degree of solemnity, not often enjoyed in the House, today. I invite all members to listen carefully to the remarks by the member for Markham and any other members who wish to participate.

Mr Cousens: In the aftermath of the war in Iraq, we are now only beginning to learn of the horrors facing the people of Iraq and Kuwait. Millions of others in countries around the world face terror and tyranny on a daily basis.

We in Canada take pride in our commitment to the principles of human rights and freedoms. Thousands of people each year find refuge in our country, to escape repression and to start their lives anew, free from repression and human indignity. The vast majority of those seeking refuge make Ontario, and indeed the Toronto area, their home. They come here in the hope that they too can live freely and prosper in ways that many of us have taken for granted.

This country has a proud tradition of acceptance and tolerance of all cultures. Our forebears were people from other countries who persevered and toiled in making this nation what it is today. As we struggle with the many internal problems we in Canada now face, let us take time to appreciate the many things we share and should appreciate. Let us take the time to remember that our national crises pale in comparison to the plight of those who consider day-to-day survival a major accomplishment.

1350

Mr Cordiano: I too wish to associate myself with the remarks just made. We mark this day as International Refugee Rights Day. Of course, we recognize it around the world. There are many people suffering who are refugees fleeing from oppression, repression and starvation. It is as simple as that. As I was thinking about this statement, I thought to myself, this has been said many, many times, about how we at this time in our history can reflect on the fact that we take what we have, in many ways, for granted. I say that personally.

When we see the plight of many millions of people throughout the world who are suffering in the way that they are as refugees, we can sit back and ask ourselves if there is not more that we can do. Certainly I think, in the context of our nation and in the context of the difficulties we face right here in this country, there is a whole lot more we can do as citizens of Canada.

We currently have 20,000 refugee claimants in Ontario. That is more than a 40% increase since September 1989. It is a huge backlog in the federal refugee claimants process which the federal government has not succeeded in improving significantly. I think that there is a great deal that we must say about the plight of those people who are now on social assistance, who as a result of federal laws are not eligible to work legally in this country, in this province.

I think it is time that both our levels of government, both the federal government and the provincial government, took some concrete steps to deal with the plight of these people who are refugees who are on social assistance and using up enormous resources in our social assistance system. I think we would be much better off if we would issue work permits so that these people can gain employment right now, ameliorate their problems, have decent work, go out, earn some pay and contribute to the economy of this province.

I think that is something that can and should be done. This government should look at it seriously and I ask the minister to do just that.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Today, as the members know, is International Refugees Rights Day. It commemorates the decision on the Singh case handed down six years ago by the Supreme Court of Canada which granted refugee claimants certain basic rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This landmark decision transformed the status of refugees in this country by guaranteeing them the right to an oral hearing and to the basic protections set out by the charter. I rise in the House today to lend this government's support to the precedent-setting Singh decision and to this commemorative day.

I also wish to speak out on behalf of refugee claimants, the majority of whom arrive in Ontario. The refugee claimant determination process is out of control in this country. The federal government has made attempts to unblock what has become known as the backlog in the system, but the fact is that 70% of the existing claims do not yet have a final determination. Many more refugee claimants than ever before are waiting, sometimes for years, for a decision on whether or not they will be able to remain in this country. This makes a mockery of the spirit of the Supreme Court's 1985 decision. The Canadian Council of Churches has argued that the lengthy delays that plague the system constitute an abuse of human rights.

There are some concerns that the decision which we honour today may have contributed to the growing crisis in refugee policy through its insistence on the right to an oral hearing. There have even been calls to override the decision, a provision that also exists under the Charter of Rights. I do not want to see this happen. I believe the problem is with the cost and the time involved in administering unwieldy regulations. We should not doubt the validity of the decision itself, a compassionate and a just decision, but rather the process it has led to. In 1984, the year before the Singh case, there were some 11,000 refugee claims awaiting resolution. Now, seven years later and two years into a new determination, there are approximately 90,000 cases in Canada without a final determination of status.

This is clearly an escalating problem. Every month in this country 3,000 people file claims for refugee status and of these, 2,000 are in Ontario, so the issue is of great concern to this government.

The services provided by Ontario Welcome House, a part of my ministry, go some distance in assisting refugees in the resettlement process, yet we do not have a major role in the policy and funding decisions affecting the screening process. My ministry is now examining ways in which we might participate in finding solutions.

Already millions of dollars in welfare payments go towards the support of refugee claimants in this province, and we know that the human costs of waiting in limbo for months or even years are extremely high. While some people who are awaiting decisions on their cases may work after an initial hearing, which may take months to schedule, they may not be reunited with their families and they may not plan for their futures. They have been granted the most rudimentary of rights through the charter but they are without a political voice. They have no vote and no influence over the decisions that will affect their own lives so critically.

Even at a time when our country and our economy are under severe strains -- particularly at such a time -- we must pursue the search for a compassionate response to the plight of those who have already been the helpless victims of oppression in their own countries, and we must seriously question a system which, however unintentionally, forces refugees to put their lives on hold while our beleaguered bureaucracy tries to catch up.

Perhaps we should be less concerned with so-called bogus claims, since under the new screening process some 85% of refugee claimants are ultimately genuine refugees, and of the remaining 15% many will appeal their decisions and be allowed to stay. Perhaps we should focus instead on ways to speed up the process in the interests of the overwhelming majority of genuine refugees. In the meantime, we will search for ways in which we might become more responsive to the desperate needs of a vulnerable group in our society.

LEGISLATIVE MAP

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would bring your and the House's attention to the fact that on the interactive map in the first-floor hallway, the map of the province of Ontario, the name of the community of Temagami is spelt "Timagami." I do not know how many thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money were spent building this map, but I thought that I should bring it to the attention of the House. Perhaps if you need information about the correct spelling, you could check with the member for Victoria-Haliburton or his solicitor; they might know.

The Speaker: I appreciate the member bringing this administrative matter to my attention. I will attend to it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Nixon: The most recent statistics on unemployment are already a month old and we expect the new ones to become public tomorrow when this House is not in session, but at the present time unemployment has jumped from 6% to 10.4% in less than a year. The matter has been raised repeatedly in the Legislature on the basis that the NDP government has not responded in any effective way to the plight of those who have been dispossessed. If you simply divide those people who have lost their jobs by the number of days, the easy average is 1,600 jobs a day. But if you look at the trend of the numbers, it is accelerating, so that while it might have been less than that a few months ago, it is certainly more than 1,600 a day now.

I have today's Orders and Notices in my hand and, compared to last week, there is no legislation before the House of any significance except that which was put forward by the Minister of Health which, while it is important, has really little or nothing to do with the economy or the job situation that I am referring to.

Once again, by way of question to the Premier, what is he going to do to urge on his Minister of Labour, who once again sits placidly and complacently in his place, and the other members of his cabinet? What is he going to do to empower himself in that regard so this House can take some action about the continuation of the recession we are suffering here in Ontario and the depredations that it is working on our unemployed?

1400

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I do not think there is a member in this House who does not share the concern that has been expressed by him with respect to the seriousness of the economic situation. There is no question that what we are facing is literally unparalleled since the Second World War in terms of its seriousness and its structural effect.

The approach of the government has been to say that we want to do what we can to protect people who are being hurt by the impact of the recession. We have put measures in place to do that and more will be forthcoming. The wage protection fund, which the Minister of Labour has responsibility for, will be ready very soon and will be discussed in the House very soon, and if it has the endorsement of members of the other parties, it will be passed very soon, I hope, because it will mean a very substantial transfer of moneys to those people who are out of pocket because they did not have any legislation for the five years the Leader of the Opposition was the Treasurer and for the 42 years the Tory party was in power. That legislation will be forthcoming this spring, and that legislation will make a difference.

I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition not to lose sight of the impact of the anti-recession program which has been very substantial; not to lose sight of the fact that this year we are forgoing some $500 million in tax revenues because we wanted to see that that money stayed in people's pockets; not to lose sight of the fact that we have child and family support legislation which is being held up in committee by members of his party. That legislation is worth tens of millions of dollars to women and children who are not being properly supported by people who are supposed to be paying for them. The approach this government has taken is to say that help will be given to those who need it most and will be given first.

The last point I want to make to the Leader of the Opposition is this. He will know full well that the government is working now, as he will understand, in preparation for a budget we believe can begin to deal with the problems we face. It is going to take time, it is going to take concerted effort, but I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: "Look to your own inaction over five years for an explanation as to why we are where we are. Look to that as a possible explanation." I would say further to him, "Look to the conduct of your own members when it comes -- "

Mr Sorbara: I'd like to go head to head with you on that, Bob, because you don't know what you're talking about.

Mr Nixon: I admire the Premier's automatic, righteous indignation. The last time I heard it expressed was when he was sitting and standing in this place and expressing to the government of the day, and I was a part of that, the inadequacies of our economic leadership. At that particular time, of course, he should have been aware that during our five years, on average we were creating 5,000 jobs a day, while since he has taken office, he has lost 1,600 jobs a day.

If he wants to blame that on the fact that some committee meeting somewhere in this House is dealing with a piece of legislation, which is a minor amendment to legislation brought forward by the Liberal government, and somehow turn that into a sufficient stimulation so that his elected supporters, with all of their care and ability to differentiate between good, evil and mediocre, have responded so substantially to him, then I suppose that is enough of an accomplishment.

I would simply point out to him that his major response and that of the Treasurer to assist those people unemployed has not been to bring forward any legislation, however promised, because it is not in the Orders and Notices and the promises that were given last week have once again been unfulfilled, but he is spending this $700 million, not now when it is needed, but next year when the fiscal year begins, on programs which the Minister of Transportation himself has indicated can be transferred by municipalities to other programs of reasonable and easier finance. In other words, these are simply political handouts to municipalities, school boards, hospitals and others to pay for programs that they had already undertaken.

The Premier was in opposition in 1982 when the then Progressive Conservative government of Ontario and the Liberal government in Ottawa faced a situation not as severe as the one we face now, in which those dollars were directed at getting people off welfare rolls and out of unemployment insurance rather than producing some sort of a political boost for the municipalities, school boards and hospitals, which need more money, but that is another issue.

Will the Premier not undertake now, when his indignation is riding high, when he might even be able to overcome the reluctance of so many of his foot-dragging colleagues, that action is needed and action is needed now? What can he offer for the immediate future in this regard?

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition -- and we welcome back the member from Gowling and Henderson.

Mr Scott: I am glad I am here because you haven't done a damned thing in seven months. You have got the levers. Pull them. Use them. Manage the government. Manage the economy.

Mr Sorbara: And it is St George-St David. Get the riding right.

The Speaker: It is not my intention to dampen the enthusiasm of any of the members for their active participation in this chamber. My ears are a touch sensitive to language which I determine to not be appropriate for the chamber. I ask all members to keep that in mind as we continue with the discussion. We have the response by the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to make two points in reply to the Leader of the Opposition. The first point is that he may think $334 million in unpaid support payments, and dealing with that problem, is a minor amendment. That is not how it is regarded on this side of the House, and I do not think that is how it is regarded by the people who are affected by this.

Second, to be very direct with the Leader of the Opposition, I think he has totally and unfairly described and mischaracterized the nature of the anti-recession program and the investment that is involved and the decisions that have been taken with respect to hundreds of millions of new dollars that are being put into the economy and that we think will have a positive impact on the economy -- and, I might say, more money being put in more quickly than is the case in any other province in Canada.

Third, l would say to the Leader of the Opposition two things. First, the wage protection fund is coming and he knows precisely the impact that that is going to have; second, he knows precisely that the budget is coming as well and he will no doubt understand that the focus of the government has been to produce a budget that we think will have a positive impact on the province and will help us to deal with these very difficult circumstances we face.

Mr Nixon: The $700-million fund the Premier is referring to has certainly been received enthusiastically by school boards, hospitals, municipalities and colleges and universities and other recipients. There is no doubt about that. l simply want to reiterate the point I tried to make last week to his Minister of Community and Social Services, that she should have an impact to see that that money is spent to assist her in the special problems she is experiencing in the rapid growth of those people who require service from the various welfare funds and programs she administers. That is a point that surely must make an impact on a New Democrat, a socialist Premier of Ontario, who must be as sensitive to that as anybody else.

But from the Treasurer himself, l put to the Premier we must be aware that, from his information over two years, 20,000 person-years of employment will be created, and that is 10,000 per year. We are losing jobs at a rate of 1,600 a day and that means over 11,000 in a week. It really means that the 10,000 jobs he is creating are soaked up by the inadequacies of the government initiatives in less than one week.

The Premier says it is more than any other province is doing. One of the reasons is that the problems in Ontario are more intense and deep-seated than those in any other province. Does he not realize that the time to drop his natural defensive armour is now, consult with his colleagues and take the sort of action that is not further postponement, that is not further political defence, but is in fact effective action to relieve those who are unemployed, and get our economy moving again?

1410

Hon Mr Rae: That is exactly what we are doing. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to look at the record of what the government has done, there is an increase in social assistance over and above what he and his government had said was adequate. With respect to the action he had said was adequate with respect to 1 January, we said it was not. We put in additional moneys in that regard. Also, for the first time in our history in recent memory, we paid money to the municipalities for that. We provided for 5,000 new day care spaces over and above what his government was doing and was planning to do.

We are looking at this as a problem that requires an immediate response, which is why we decided to create the capital fund and why we have injected as much money into the fund as we have. We also are working hard with industry and workers together to deal not only with the short-term problems, but with the long-term needs of the province and with our need to address the structural problems that exist and what it is going to take to turn them around.

Some of it can be done sooner rather than later. What can be done sooner, we have done. Some of it is being held up by the opposition leader's own colleagues who are surrounding him at the moment, and some of it is going to take time and effort. We as a government fully intend to put that time and effort into trying to solve this very, very difficult problem.

Mr Nixon: It is interesting to hear the Premier rail against the democratic process, but I suppose we are going to hear more of that in the future. As a matter of fact, I predict we will.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mr Nixon: I have a question of my favourite minister, the Minister of the Environment, who in her announcements in the last couple of days has certainly brought forward a lot of focused community response. She has indicated in her comments outside of this House that there may very well be a garbage gap. Without spending time to describe what that would be, the minister knows what that is. In the short term, it is a time when even the minister's faith in her ability to look after the garbage situation may leave a time when there are no approved sites in the greater Toronto area in which garbage can be deposited, dumped or whatever the proper verb is.

She has indicated she will use her undoubted legislative legal powers to indicate where this extra garbage will be deposited. Of course we are asking her assurance, which she would not give yesterday when asked by a member of the Conservative Party and which she would not give to the press, in the event there will have to be ministerial approval given for depositing garbage in landfill sites that are supposed to be legally full, which appears more and more likely, that there will be a full environmental assessment undertaken before that process begins.

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I really regret the fact that he does not share my confidence in the people of this province and in the people of the GTA to make some changes in the way they deal with waste. That is what this government is asking of people. We do not underestimate the difficulty of doing that, but we are saying we have to change from being a consumer society and a wasteful society to being a society that conserves, reduces and reuses.

I am very confident people will do that, and when that happens, we will not have a garbage gap. If we have a garbage gap, we will address that problem when it occurs, but at this point we are planning for the long term, we are planning for changes in the system, we are making those changes and we are seeing the results of those changes.

Mr Nixon: The minister admirably believes that by good faith alone she is going to convince the residents of Ontario, and particularly the greater Toronto area, that the garbage gap and the difficulties that are envisaged will not occur. I personally hope that she is successful, but something more than good faith is needed. In this instance there is a clear commitment, given by her party and her leader, that is well known to everybody, but it has to be read since it is so clear.

I remember the Premier, in his former capacity as Leader of the Opposition, going out to Whitevale, a very sensitive part of the world when there might possibly have been a landfill opened up in the event, God forbid, that the terrible Liberals were ever returned to office, and he said on 7 August, "All new dump sites and expansions of old ones must go through full environmental assessments which look at the environmental, social, cultural and economic impacts of a project."

I have the highest admiration for the minister, and I will not repeat that too often, having done it twice in this question, and I respect her good faith, but we have a commitment -- a clear one -- from the government for a full environmental assessment. How can she now say, "We will decide that when the time comes"?

Hon Mrs Grier: There is a very significant difference between the policies of this government and the policies of the previous government. As the Leader of the Opposition said, the site in Whitevale, on which the Premier was standing when that quote was given, had been identified by the previous government as an interim landfill site. Interim was for four or five years. That government was going to exempt that greenfield site from a full environmental assessment. This government has said, "When we look for a new site, we will subject it to an environmental assessment," and that is what we are going to do.

Mr Nixon: A wise and trusted colleague and adviser of mine said this morning that the Minister of the Environment is acting, as she pronounces these policies, as if she will not be around when the decisions have to be made, because the two simply are mutually exclusive.

I would like to ask the minister if, in her careful thoughts associated with this, and her reliance on faith rather than good works for garbage salvation, she is prepared to consider, during the garbage gap, even though she hopes that will not occur, that the garbage could be shipped out of the country, as it presently is, I believe, by Halton, at a cost of some millions of dollars per year, where they presently ship it over to western New York, or is it possible that she might review her position on interregional shipment during that period of hiatus, difficulty, the garbage gap? What sort of flexibility in her own mind is there in the event that this thing does not work out quite as fortuitously as she hopes?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry to disappoint the Leader of the Opposition, but I intend to be around for a very long time, and I am prepared to make the tough decisions now when they need to be made, and not put them off until a fortuitous time. The decisions that we have made are not merely going on faith. We have an integrated waste management program, and that program is beginning to show results. Who would have thought four months ago that Metropolitan Toronto council, as it did yesterday, would have said that every home should have a composter? That is the kind of change that we are instigating. That is the kind of change that will happen, and that is the kind of change that will make sure that there is no garbage gap, but that we meet our objectives.

1420

Mr Harris: I was pleased to hear from the minister that she plans to be around, the same way I heard from the member for Welland-Thorold last fall that he planned to be around for a long time. We will see what happens when the conflict with the Premier's objectives arises.

I realize this government is not long on fiscal responsibility, but I do have a question for the Minister of the Environment on the price-tag of New Democratic Party ineptitude. Would the minister tell this House exactly how much it has cost the municipal and the provincial taxpayers of this province as a result of the minister trashing every viable waste disposal option that was open to Metro, and could she share that cost with this House?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sorry, but I cannot give the leader of the third party any specific figures. There are a lot of estimates and rather wild estimates being thrown around as to the costs that have been undertaken by a range of municipalities. As I said in November, we are using the data that have been collected, the studies that have been done on many of the sites and many of the options, those within the GTA, which the public waste authority will build on as they proceed towards the environmental assessment.

Mr Harris: I quite frankly did not expect the minister to know, because I do not really expect that the government costs out anything it promises or that it plans on doing. When it comes to the cost or the fiscal responsibility, or as we saw in the Ministry of Transportation whether the money is spent where it is supposed to be spent, we are finding that the government really has no control at all.

On 21 November the minister said this, "I will be moving quickly to implement a number of waste reduction measures." On 21 February -- she seems to like the 21st for making these promises -- the minister said, "What I am offering is a province-wide action plan and specific suggestions." It is now April. We have seen nothing specific. We have seen no solid guidelines. We have seen no solid game plans. All we see is solid waste.

Surely since the minister knew a year ago, as she was in opposition, not only that time was running out but that it had run out -- she would agree, I think now, that time has run out -- can she tell us when she is going to tell anybody what they can do since all we have heard from her so far is what they cannot do?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure in view of his question that the leader has read my announcement of 21 February. It was a very positive and concrete announcement of a variety of ways in which municipalities could move towards waste reduction. That involved looking at the separation of waste at source, putting in place waste audits, developing waste reduction action plans, being relieved from some of the approval obligations that existed with respect to getting centralized composting put in place, and an indication that we were prepared to look at an enhancement of the grant program that would facilitate municipalities doing what municipalities want to do, which is to get serious about reducing the waste, not just stuffing it in a hole in somebody's back yard.

Mr Harris: I find it fascinating. The minister says she has been specific and yet on 4 April, in an article in the Toronto Sun, when we were hearing about trash penalties coming, she is quoted as saying: "Oh, well, I don't have a fleshed-out game plan yet. I don't know what the fine is going to be. I don't know who is going to impose them, but I think people want to be told what to do." I agree. Now she has told them all the things they cannot do. I agree. They are waiting to hear if there is anything that they can do.

Since the minister has now assumed responsibility I would ask her this: She seems to be the only one in the whole of the province who does not believe there is a garbage gap. A year ago she said there was, but now she does not think there is one. We cannot afford to wait, Metropolitan Toronto cannot afford to wait and Ontario cannot afford to wait. In view of the fact the minister's announcements to date have had no solutions, have just ruled out options, narrowed down the options, told them what they cannot do, specifically can she tell us what it is that she intends to do when all the sites are full in 1993 because everybody knows that is going to be the case. Can the minister tell us specifically what happens in 1993?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know of anybody other than the leader of the third party who is indicating that the GTA will be out of waste capacity in 1993. The figure I have been using is the middle of 1994. There are indications from the statistics that are coming in monthly that the rate of waste generation is slowing partially because of the initiatives we have taken and partially because of the economic situation; I acknowledge that.

Let's talk about 1993. By 1993 we will be well under way with the selection and the evaluation of long-term sites to take the residue of the greater Toronto area's waste and we will be looking for sites based on environmental principles, and we will have put in place across the GTA and across the province a waste management system that puts the environment first. When we build into the cost, we build in environmental costs and we make decisions on the basis of what is best for the environment. That is what we have done. That is what we said we would do and that is what we have continued to do.

Mr Harris: Short of carrying on the way the government is going economically, there will not be anybody left who can afford to live in Toronto or be able to buy food. I agree with the minister, if she keeps up that total record, she will not need any more landfill sites. I hope that is not the solution the minister is proposing.

DAVID PATTERSON

Mr Harris: My second question is for the Premier. In February 1990, a pretty well publicized court decision was made against the United Steelworkers of America and David Patterson, the head of its Canadian branch. Specifically, Mr Patterson was found guilty of making false allegations of customs fraud against Procor Ltd. In view of this, does the Premier think it is appropriate that Mr Patterson remains presently as his appointment on the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Hon Mr Rae: First of all, because the leader of the third party is again making certain allegations, let me say first of all that the second thing he said, that he is my appointment on the Ontario Labour Relations Board, is false. Mr Patterson was appointed to the Ontario Labour Relations Board by the previous government. He was appointed as a labour-sides person to the board. So let me just say with respect to the second statement that the member has made, that is incorrect. Perhaps the member would like to stand up and correct the record and make that clear as he says that.

Mr Harris: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I accept the Premier's invitation. He has asked me to correct the record.

The Speaker: The Premier did invite the leader of the third party to correct the record.

Mr Harris: Perhaps I did not phrase it right. What I certainly had meant --

Interjections.

Mr Harris: The members do not want me to correct the record? I thought I said, and the record will show, that he remains as the Premier's appointment. If that is not what I said, it is what I am saying now, that he remains as the Premier's appointment. The former Premier has no power now to remove him, so he remains as the Premier's appointment. If I was not clear, I want the Premier to be clear on that.

Hon Mr Rae: Second, and I will have to look into the matter with respect to the statement that has been made, the member talked about a conviction. It is my recollection that what there was in this regard was a civil suit between two parties, a trade union and a company; a civil suit, that is my belief. So when the member talks about a conviction, I just hope he is right. When he goes around talking about convictions, he goes around talking about other people's families, he stands up and talks about carpets in the house. Let's try and get the facts straight before he makes the allegations.

Interjections.

1430

LEGISLATIVE MAP

The Speaker: Before the leader of the third party continues with his supplementary, perhaps this would be an opportune moment to mention to the member for Parry Sound and others that the spelling error to which he referred is at this very moment being attended to and with any luck the map will be repaired shortly.

DAVID PATTERSON

Mr Harris: The court decision is well known. The documentation that is released there is well known. What I am questioning are the Premier's standards, what he considers acceptable for appointment to his boards and commissions or his caucus or his cabinet. The Premier is quite right; it was a civil lawsuit. The judge, in ruling against the union and Mr Patterson, said, "It was Patterson who orchestrated most of the actions of the defendants," and "The actions of the defendants, particularly that of Patterson, were reckless, vindictive and inappropriate, and he lent his high office to the whole process and gave it credibility."

That is a matter of record, that is the public record and that is there. In response to the resignation of the member for Oakwood in October, the Premier said: "The message is very clear. I don't expect perfection, but I do expect high standards of conduct." We know what happened to the member for Oakwood. He was thrown right out of caucus.

I would ask the Premier, in view of this decision and the judge's, unless the Premier is disputing the judge's comments, can he tell me why Mr Patterson is still sitting as the Premier's appointee on the Ontario Labour Relations Board?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, I want to be fair to everyone. Maybe it is called learning, but what I would like to do is say to the member that I am not going to give him an instant answer. I am going to look into the circumstances involved. But I do want the two corrections to be established. First, there is no question of a conviction involved here. There is a civil dispute in which a decision was made by a judge with respect to that civil dispute, which was a lawsuit between two parties to a contract. Second, Mr Patterson was appointed and now serves as a result of an appointment by the previous government.

Mr Harris: I have said yes, it was a civil suit where clearly Mr Patterson was found in the wrong and the allegations are as a result of that. I think there were more than allegations in that judgement; they were findings and judgement, I think, of $200,000 was awarded to the company as a result of the inappropriate actions and behaviour of Mr Patterson. I think we understand that he was appointed by the former Premier; however, he sits there at the leisure of this Premier.

Hon Mr Wildman: Leisure?

Mr Harris: Pleasure. Is that a better word? All right.

I think there is a clear parallel between the Patterson case and the case of the member for Oakwood. The member for Oakwood paid the price. He erred as an employer, obviously a grave sin in the Premier's handbook, so the Premier turfed him right out of caucus. Mr Patterson, on the other hand, erred as a labour leader. Once again, I suggest to the Premier that he is sending out the message that making a mistake is okay, inappropriate behaviour and conduct and action is okay as long as it is a cause the Premier believes in. But if it is a cause the Premier does not believe in, then the slightest mistake is cause to be turfed out. Would the Premier not agree with me that this is the mixed signal that he is sending out about his standards, his ethics?

Hon Mr Rae: I think I have probably learned enough over the last several years, and certainly the last several months, that no one serves at my leisure, because I do not have a whole lot of that at the moment, but there you are.

I think I owe it to everyone involved to have a look into the particular allegations that have been made by the leader of the third party and obviously I will do that. The other thing I have learned is that there is a difference between saying something and proving something and I am just going to have to have a look at what has been said.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. I have just returned from the Niagara Peninsula where I visited communities like Welland, St Catharines and Fort Erie. I witnessed at first hand the results of her government's failure to address the cross-border shopping issue. It is rapidly turning the downtowns of those communities into ghostlike towns. In response to the urgent pleas from Niagara and communities such as her own around this province, her government has pointed the finger of blame at everyone else. They have taken no responsibility and they have taken no action.

A customs official in Fort Erie told me today that he knew what the problem was, that he was seeing increases of 30% traffic across that border. He also told me what chambers of commerce have told the minister and her fellow ministers. He also told me what the Shop Ontario group has been telling her government; he told me what municipalities have been saying, what the mayors yesterday told her government. He said part of the solution to cross-border shopping lies in the reduction of provincial gasoline and sales taxes, the differentials that were discussed this morning at the very committee where she was present.

Will the minister stand in this House today and commit to give her constituents and border communities across this province some relief by instituting those very policies that have been suggested time and time again to her government?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to inform the member that cross-border shopping did not start on 6 September when we became elected. This has been an ongoing and growing problem that unfortunately was not addressed by her government but that we will address as a government. It is also very important for everyone to realize that as a government we are not the only player which has to solve this problem. We have to work with the federal government, with municipalities, with businesses and consumers. There is a lot of work to be done.

I have presently asked to meet with the Minister of National Revenue to discuss cross-border shopping in our province and how it is affecting us and what we see as solutions to the problem from talking with him. We are working on this and we encourage members opposite to work with us, so that our economy can become stabilized and we can work together.

Mrs Caplan: The minister's answer is clearly unacceptable. I find it offensive that the Premier went to Sault Ste Marie on 23 January and said his government was looking into the situation. That was after he had been in office four months. His Minister of Revenue today has nothing but empty rhetoric again. The Premier said in January that there were solutions; he knows there is action that can be taken. I will say to the minister that you do not solve problems by blaming everyone else; you solve them by doing what you can. There is much that she can do. The solutions have been identified for the provincial government.

Hon Mr Cooke: Like what? Tell us.

Mrs Caplan: Is the member listening?

Hon Mr Cooke: I'm listening.

Mrs Caplan: The minister can reduce provincial gasoline and sales taxes and she can help her constituents and the people of this province. All it would take would be two small actions, amendments to existing legislation by the Minister of Revenue. Yes or no, will the minister stand in this House today? Yes or no, will she help? Yes or no, will she take that action on behalf of border communities m this province?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Yes, I will work on this problem, as will all of my colleagues, as will this government, and I look forward to the member working with us.

1440

EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Education. There are five areas of education that are being examined in the present review of Ontario's curriculum: the early years, formative years, transition years, specialization years and technological education. We know there has been consultation. We also know there is a lack of co-ordination between these groups. Teachers have been asked to respond to the document on transition years before the document on specialization years has been released. Without a co-ordinated effort, the minister and I both know that this process, to put it bluntly, is useless. Will the minister launch a review of the present restructuring process to ensure that the timing and substance in the work of the various teams is synchronized?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I certainly will, because I have said to all the stakeholder groups that in order for this entire curriculum review to make any sense, the agenda that was set does not make sense unless we are putting it all together and, frankly, putting it together with a sixth piece, which is the whole issue of teacher training, both in-service and pre-service training. We need to do a whole piece of work that is going to look at how the whole issue of curriculum and methodology will work together to strengthen our education system.

Mrs Cunningham: According to the present policy, by 26 September grade 9 students will no longer be streamed into the basic, general and advanced levels, yet pilot projects have not yet been evaluated. Given the minister's response to my previous question, and that is that she is going to look at this review, she should also be thinking, in addition, that this whole program that is to be implemented in September 1992 is very expensive and that the issue of education funding is before the Fair Tax Commission.

I want to draw the minister's attention to the select committee on education when it stated that additional resources must be allocated for smaller class sizes and in-service training for teachers if we proceed with destreaming. Who will pay for this? Is this another program that will be downloaded on to the local taxpayers?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Our government is very concerned, as the member is, about the way in which the initiatives of the previous government were put into place without appropriate study about how they would affect funding and how they would affect the local municipalities. We remain extremely concerned that the deadlines that were set did not take into account the length of time it would take us to really change the whole way in which we finance education and the way we plan it. So I share the member's concerns. Yes, indeed, I believe that in order to carry through the kinds of improvements that we want to make in our education system, the people of Ontario expect us to do that in conjunction with our funding reforms.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr G. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and it involves the Wolfe Island ferry terminal, which is in my riding. The minister will know that there have been a number of claims made against a contractor that the Ministry of Transportation hired to construct the terminal. These claims were made by subcontractors who charged that they had not been paid for work that has been completed. What has the minister done to resolve this matter?

Hon Mr Philip: I want to thank the member for Kingston and The Islands for his question and for the fact that he brought his concerns about this to me some time ago. I want to assure the member that my ministry has the highest standards for contractors to live up to. In this particular case, my ministry investigated the claims that have been made and undertook an audit of the contractor and the subcontractors. We have been in touch with the contractor and the contractor's bonding company and I can tell the member that I received correspondence from the company this morning indicating that it will be paying the subcontractors the money that is owed to them in the next few days.

Mr G. Wilson: The minister will also know that there were a number of claims made by the contractor's employees, charging that they had not been paid according to the fair wage schedule that was part of the contract. What is the status of these claims and what has the minister done to deal with them?

Hon Mr Philip: Again, we investigated the claims that were made by the workers and verified that they were legitimate claims. We contacted the company and gave it a deadline of next week to pay the workers the money that was owed to them. The correspondence this morning indicated that they would be paying that. I want to thank the member once again for bringing this problem on behalf of his constituents to my attention.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy. During the election, her party's Sudbury triumvirate -- I refer to the member for Nickel Belt, the member for Sudbury and the member for Sudbury East -- made big promises about northern gasoline prices. To remind the minister, here are four statements attributed to them. These are statements taken from an 11 August 1990 edition of the Sudbury Star.

Statement 1: "We want to see a provincial energy commission created to ensure northerners pay the same price for gasoline as people living in Toronto."

Statement 2: "There is no justification for the price difference."

Statement 3: "The government has the power to intervene to ensure that northerners will not be gouged."

Statement 4: "Most of the higher price paid in the north is due to federal and provincial taxes and oil companies trying to increase their profits."

In addition, on 3 October the Premier promised he would stop gouging at the gas pumps and protect Ontarians.

What has the minister's government done to address what was a high priority for key members of the government last August, when gas prices were 47 cents to 49 cents per litre in Toronto and 57 cents to 59 cents per litre in Sudbury, virtually identical to today's prices?

Hon Mrs Carter: The government is concerned, as I have said repeatedly before, about higher gasoline prices in the north. It is not a simple issue. We do realize that it is a serious concern for northerners and for northern businesses and we are moving to address this issue as quickly as we can.

Mr McGuinty: I interpret that to mean it is under review. Last week the minister singlehandedly, in one fell swoop, changed decades of NDP policy when she defended oil companies, and that is despite her mandate to ensure supply and reasonable prices for consumers throughout Ontario. A number of solutions have been proposed: establishment of a provincial commission; province-wide gas price equalization; a three-cent-per-litre tax reduction. What specific action can we expect and when? I implore the minister not to tell me it is under review.

Hon Mrs Carter: We are coming up with a range of options, which I hope to present quite soon. None of them will have the effect of waving a magic wand and suddenly solving this problem. I wish we could do that. I am afraid we cannot.

The Sudbury Star was mentioned. I think the Econobox it is featuring, which shows people what the prices are in their area and where they can go to get the best price, is a constructive way of attacking this issue and I would certainly encourage that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Oakville South.

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General.

Interjections.

The Speaker: We are a lively group today. The member for Oakville South would like to pose a question.

1450

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Carr: Last August the Premier accused the Liberal government of taking the chicken way out on the Sunday shopping issue, and some people will remember the Solicitor General during that period on the Sunday shopping tours around the province actually had a little chicken mascot that he carried around to mock the previous government.

My question to the Solicitor General is this: Will he end this studious procrastination and give us a date for the legislation?

Hon Mr Farnan: I want to assure the member and the House that legislation is on a fast track and will be coming to the House very soon.

Mrs Witmer: Every day that this government fiddles, it causes more and more confusion throughout this province. Within my riding, the village of St Jacobs requested, prior to the legislation being struck down in the courts, to be designated as a tourist area. The regional municipality could not hear that application because of the court challenge. When the legislation was determined to be legal, they reintroduced their application. This time the municipality plans to process it.

As the minister is no doubt aware, the legislation requires a 30-day notice period, as well as public hearings by the municipality. In the meantime, the Solicitor General has directed police forces to enforce the provisions and lay charges for being open on a Sunday.

St Jacobs most certainly qualifies as a tourist area. On a recent Sunday a survey revealed that visitors were present from 15 countries, representing all the continents except Antarctica, eight Canadian provinces, six American states and 112 Ontario cities and towns. St Jacobs is such a great tourist area that Durham College is conducting bus trips there when it is not busy going to Buffalo.

Will the Solicitor General not agree that for areas such as St Jacobs which are so obviously tourist areas, he should direct police forces in this province not to lay charges within a reasonable period of time in areas in which the municipality has given public notice of its intent to process such applications? Will the minister do this today?

Hon Mr Farnan: There is, it is true, no tourist exemption under the current legislation, and stores are required to close unless they meet certain criteria with respect to goods sold, size of establishment and number of employees.

Municipalities are entitled to pass bylaws under the current legislation. In the absence -- and I say this to all members of the House -- of such a bylaw, police are required to enforce legislation in an unbiased manner. Believe me, it is not for politicians, and it would be a sorry day if ever politicians were to select communities where the law will be enforced or is to be suspended. This is a prerogative of policing in the province of Ontario and it would be a sorry day indeed if we were to say when police lay charges or do not lay charges.

RENT REGULATION

Mrs MacKinnon: My question is to the Minister of Housing. With Bill 4 being sought as the short-term measure to deal with the current rent review legislation, could the minister explain how the permanent legislation will differ?

Hon Mr Cooke: I cannot really answer that question for the member yet, because we are in the consultation process and we have invited participation from literally hundreds, in fact thousands of people across the province, to participate in the consultation process in helping us to come up with a permanent piece of rent control legislation which will work and will be fair and offer real protection for tenants. The plan is that this legislation will be introduced in June of this year.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Miclash: My question is to the Minister of Health. In November, the minister will remember, my colleague asked her about northern health travel grants. The minister at that time indicated that the government was building a reserve of knowledge and information to determine which northern health priorities she would address first. Four months have passed since that question was asked of the minister, and then we have more than a year which has passed since the NDP released what it called Operation Critical, its commitment to the health care needs of the people in the north.

Today, during private members' hour, the member for Sault Ste Marie, a government colleague of the minister's, called access to health care an issue of justice for northerners. Access to health care in the north is being compromised while the minister builds a reserve of knowledge. Why is the minister failing to honour her commitment to the people of the north?

Hon Ms Gigantes: This will be a priority, for improvement to health services in the north. It is an area we have done work on. We still have a few administrative details to iron out and then we will be pleased to announce our policy.

Mr Miclash: The minister will realize that the former Liberal government made a $2.5-million commitment to the northern health travel grant program. Distance requirements were reduced at that time to 200 kilometres and the program was extended to include travel companions for patients of all ages. We have heard nothing from the NDP but the minister's coy "wait and see" responses.

We are all aware of a recent situation in northern Ontario where a patient who tested positive for HIV was unable to receive adequate treatment in his home town. He was then rejected for a northern health travel grant. He was not able to qualify for that. The minister said she would act. She has not done so to date.

The situation I have just described demonstrates that there is an immediate and specific need that is being ignored by the government. I ask the minister again, when are we going to see more than an ad hoc approach to northern health care needs and when are we going to see some action from her as minister?

Hon Ms Gigantes: We will see the improvement of the northern travel allowance program very shortly, as I indicated in the answer to the first question. It will be an improvement, I suggest, which will go beyond those he has proposed.

I would also like to address the part of his question which relates to the difficult case he cites of the gentleman with AIDS who was seeking health services in Toronto. This particular case is one which raises the issue of whether the northern travel allowance program should be extended to general practitioners in cases such as this one. It is an issue which I have asked the ministry to review.

PETITIONS

ALCOHOL AND DRUG TREATMENT

Mr Sutherland: I have a petition of 127 signatures from the riding of Oxford urging the government to fund programs for addiction services in Ontario rather than sending Ontario residents to the United States, and I have signed my name to that petition.

CUSTODY AND ACCESS

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by approximately 38 residents of Oakville and area, strongly asserting that the legislation guaranteeing support payments must be accompanied by legislation guaranteeing ordered access.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

POLICE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES SERVICES POLICIERS

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Police Services Act, 1990.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 66, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1990 sur les services policiers.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

1500

Hon Mr Hampton: I am pleased to introduce an amendment to the Police Services Act which will confirm that members of boards of inquiry appointed to hear evidence under the former act continue to sit as members until the work assigned to them is completed. This is provided for in the new act for boards appointed after 31 December 1990, and our amendment will ensure the same status for the members of the 16 boards of inquiry appointed under the former act but which have not yet completed their hearings.

ELECTRICAL WIRING SYSTEMS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES INSTALLATIONS ÉLECTRIQUES

Mr Jordan moved first reading of Bill 67, An Act respecting Electrical Wiring Systems.

M. Jordan propose la première lecture du projet de loi 67, Loi concernant les installations électriques.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Jordan: The bill would prohibit persons from performing work on an electrical wiring system unless they hold a certificate of qualification as an electrician to perform the work under the supervision of someone who does hold a certificate. Persons who apply to Ontario Hydro for an inspection of work performed on an electrical wiring system would be required to indicate the certificate of qualification number of the person who carried out or supervised the work on the application and would not be entitled to an inspection unless this was done.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 32, An Act to amend the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton Act and the Municipal Elections Act.

House in committee of the whole.

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991

Resuming consideration of Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act, 1986.

Section 1:

The Second Deputy Chair: We are still considering an amendment moved by Mr Tilson to subsection 1(2) of the bill. Are there any further comments or questions?

Ms Poole: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Just before we go to the proceedings today, on Tuesday the Liberal caucus tabled a number of amendments to the bill and so did the member for the third party. I would just point out that at the time we prepared those amendments, we were working under a version of the bill that considered them to be under section 8. The newly revised act has now been printed, and I have noted that section 8 has now become section 9, so I think for both the official opposition and the third party amendments that all of section 8 should be considered as such.

The Second Deputy Chair: The table will make note of that. We will be approving in due course up to and including section 8 and then we will move into the new section 9, which is amended as you have mentioned.

Are there further comments, questions or debate on Mr Tilson's amendment to section 1? Is the House ready for the question? Shall Mr Tilson's amendment to section 1 of the bill carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay." In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Section 1 agreed to.

Sections 2 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr Tilson: I must confess to a misunderstanding on my part. I think I did want to speak on section 8. I misunderstood your comment, Mr Chairman. I know we voted on it, but I would like to speak on section 8.

The Second Deputy Chair: Is there unanimous consent that the member for Dufferin-Peel revert back to discussions on section 8?

Agreed to.

1510

Section 8:

Mr Tilson: This was a matter which was amended at committee with the agreement of the Liberal Party and the government. It is a matter that I think we should spend a short time on with respect to some clarification by the minister on the intent of it, because my belief is that what this section does is create two classifications of orders. I would like the minister to explain to the committee the intent of the amended sections.

Hon Mr Cooke: I think the critic for the third party understands the intent of the amendment. We debated this for several days in the committee. He understands very much what conditional orders are all about. He is the one, along with the critic for the official opposition, who made the point that these were a very different type of case because they were conditional orders because they had already received approval. The member made the case himself that conditional orders were quite different from all the rest. I tried to find some accommodation and some common ground, and the critic for the official opposition put forward an amendment which we supported.

Mr Tilson: We certainly did not debate this for a number of days. It was a matter that was put forward by the Liberal Party and the minister, with the support of the government members on the committee, and we certainly did not spend a number of days on it. An arrangement was made with the Liberals and the government, to the exclusion of our party's members, and we spoke quite strongly against it.

Yes, we certainly were opposed to the original proposal put forward by the government to void all conditional orders. We were strongly against that, because it certainly does change the rules that the people of this province had relied on.

I am now trying to do what the minister hopefully would have done when I asked for a clarification. My understanding of what this amendment does is that it says that if the increase is greater than 15%, to an equivalent of 15%, the conditional orders will not apply. We took strong objection to that. We felt that all conditional orders prior to the date should apply.

Why create two classes of citizens when the previous legislation, the existing legislation as it stands now, approves these conditional orders, and people who have gone through it with that understanding have allowed it -- the existing law of this province allows that type of order to go through.

Now, the minister in hindsight, realizing he had made a mistake, said, "Oh well, we will allow those who are under 15%." I would like him to elaborate further on that, other than commenting that we have debated it for several days, which we did not. It is not true.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not quite sure what the critic wants me to elaborate on. We did discuss this over a period of time in committee, and the member knows that. The 15% cap was a case that had been made on conditional orders by him and by the critic for the official opposition.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: The minister should correct the record. I did not agree as the critic, as he has suggested. That is not so.

Hon Mr Cooke: I did not say that. I did not say the member agreed. I said he had made the point about conditional orders. He should not put words in my mouth. I know he did not agree. He did not know what to do with the amendment.

Mr Tilson: I did so. We voted against it.

Hon Mr Cooke: He voted against it, after humming and hawing on it for quite some time, because he was not quite sure how to deal with it. Now, the 15% cap is very clear. His position is to deregulate the entire industry and let anybody get any increase he wants. We have said, under conditional orders, there is a particular case: We will let conditional orders go through under Bill 4, but we are going to put a cap on them. We are not going to let the increases go through at 45% and 50%, which some of them were, and he knows that. We said it would be fairer to cap them at 15% so the tenants have some protection and so some of the costs that landlords have experienced are passed through. I do not apologize for that. I think it was a decent compromise on conditional orders. It is not the kind of principle that I felt entirely comfortable with because I think 15% is too high, but it was a compromise, and it has been allowed on conditional orders. I understand the member's position. His position is that he would let them all go through and that the 45% increases in some of the buildings, like the ones out on Pharmacy Avenue, he would let go through. I think about the tenants and offering some protection for tenants. He obviously does not think about that at all.

Mr Tilson: Our party is concerned with the matter of fairness, and I think obviously the minister, partway through the public hearings, realized that this and other sections of Bill 4 are most unfair to the people of the province. They are unfair to the tenants. They are unfair to the landlords. Conditional orders have been granted by the existing legislation. Those people who had made those applications had applied for them, the orders had been granted, and all of a sudden this government comes along without any warning and cancels them. Now, of course, in committee somehow the Liberal Party and the government for some reason come up with a figure of 15%. Why not 20%? Why not 25%? Why not 10%? No logical reason for that at all. Why not all of them? That is the question. The fact is, these people honestly abided by the rules and this government, without warning, changed them.

I think it is a comparison that I gave at committee, simply saying that if you have 100 people -- we will say 100% -- in a boat out on the sea, and the boat is sinking, we will save 15% of them. We will save 15% of them. We will let the others drown. That is exactly what this government is doing. They are letting the rest of them sink.

Hon Mr Cooke: I appreciate the comments. The Conservative Party is absolutely and totally clear on this issue, as it is on rent control in general. He would let them all sink. In fact, he would participate and be a partner in sinking thousands of tenants across this province by allowing the rents to go up by 45% and 50%. It is not a philosophy my party shares, and we never will share that philosophy. His free enterprise attitude would allow tenants to sink in this province without any protection at all, and I think it is an absolute disgrace, the lack of understanding that the Conservative Housing critic tries to impose on the people of this province. Some housing policy: Let tenants be economically evicted from their apartments. It is an absolute disgrace.

1520

Mr Turnbull: The Minister of Housing is, as usual, factually incorrect. First of all, there was absolutely no humming and hawing. We were unequivocal in our condemnation of this clause. The reason that we are against this capping is we have -- I think he is trying to defend himself against a constitutional challenge, which obviously his legal opinion has indicated is where he is most vulnerable.

The fact remains that what the minister is doing is he is rewarding those people who have said: "We don't trust the legislation of Ontario. We're going to go and get a conditional order, because the bill itself is not sufficient for us to trust them." So those people are going to have a 15% cap. All the other people who have been left out to dry, who had to spend money -- remember, they had to spend the money before they could apply under rent review -- are now told, "You are not going to get your increase that was clearly contemplated under Bill 51." He is also factually incorrect in suggesting 45% increases, because his own ministry presented numbers in terms of what the increases were for those people with conditional orders. The majority of them were in the 18% to 25% range.

Consistently the Ministry of Housing presented us with numbers indicating the fallacy of these huge increases that the minister was suggesting had occurred. They did not happen. There were individual instances where there were large percentage increases. Within his opening remarks on Bill 4 in the committee, the minister gave a list of buildings where in fact he suggested there were huge increases, over 100%. Every single location that he mentioned in his opening speech accounted for 24 units in the province, and most of them with very low rental bases.

Now, when you have capping of this nature, it means those people who have spent more than the guidelines are not going to get anything more than that. It does not contemplate the fact that maybe they have a very low rental base, and the minister has presented no evidence whatsoever as to what the rental base was on all of those units that are being capped. It is fundamentally wrong to have two classes of citizens: those people who trusted the legislation under Bill 51 and ordered their affairs within the framework of that, and the people who did not trust it.

Hon Mr Cooke: I am going to be leaving my parliamentary assistant in charge for a while, and I will be back in about a half-hour, but I did not want to leave without telling the honourable member from the Conservative Party who just spoke that he can throw out all his versions of the statistics if he wants. The fact of the matter is, the numbers for conditional orders were very clear, and I referred specifically a few minutes ago not to an average increase of 45%, but to some buildings, in particular on Pharmacy, that were 45% and there were some that were higher.

His idea, his solution is to let those tenants sink, and the government has no role in protection. Our party and our government believe that we need to protect those tenants and that we need to have regulation in order to protect those tenants. It is an honest difference of opinion. He would let tenants sink. We will protect them because it is part of our housing strategy.

The Second Deputy Chair: The member for Eglinton, who has been patiently waiting.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Mr Chair. A patient person I am and I have to be in this Legislature. It is one of the problems with being five feet tall. Sometimes you just do not quite get seen.

I would like to make the case that conditional orders are a very different case than any other type under rent review. The minister has pointed this out and I think it is very true, and the Conservative Party has agreed with this. These are cases where the landlord who applies under the conditional order provision is extremely cautious. They cannot afford, or they are unwilling to go ahead unless they have a written, ironclad guarantee from government that they are going to be able to pay for those renovations through the rent review system.

The conditional orders: There were not a lot in the province, but they were people who really had faith that the law would protect them. They had as close as one can get to a guarantee under law that they would be reimbursed through the rent control system. Many of them went out and secured loans and were actually on the verge of bankruptcy, because Bill 4 was going to deny them some relief.

So when the minister said he had a concern about those suffering under the conditional order situation, I approached him and I talked in committee on the record about maybe reaching some compromise. There was no plot. There was no meeting behind closed doors to try to decide how to skewer the third party and not have them enter into the conversation. I phoned the minister a couple of times and I said: "Minister, you've said you are willing to look at it. Well, we're willing to compromise." Unlike the third party, I am not willing to stand back on the shoreline and let 100 people drown. If I can save 50% of those people, I will save 50% of those people. Whatever I can do, and whatever is in my power, is what I am going to do. I am not going to throw up my hands and say: "I'm not willing to compromise. I'm not willing to accept anything less than everything." I felt that accepting the 15% cap that the minister suggested was something we could live with.

For most of the people under conditional orders, it satisfied most of their problem. There were a couple of cases where there were very high rent increases, where the 15% did not go far enough, where they will not be able to secure mortgaging and to resolve their financial situation. While I would very much like to help those people, when it came down to the dilemma that the minister described, saying that they could not tolerate the tenants having this 162% increase, which was one of the conditional orders, I felt we had to compromise.

If the compromise is unacceptable to the third party, I am sorry. I am as human as most people. I would like to have my cake and eat it too. I do not like to lose a battle by getting only part of it, but that is the situation we are in. So I will support the minister in what he has agreed to and what he has compromised with. I think, in committee, we did thrash this out on a number of occasions, and I sincerely apologize if the critic for the third party felt that he did not have sufficient notice as to what was happening, but it all happened very quickly. When the proposal was entertained at committee, we explained that. We explained that there was no plot. The Liberals and NDP were not meeting behind closed doors, but we did feel that a compromise was not only possible but feasible.

We have had agreement between at least two of the three caucuses on this amendment, which was passed, and I would hope we would have the concurrence of members of the House today that it was a fair compromise; it may not have given all parties everything they wanted, but at least it provided some relief. I would stand behind that amendment and support the minister in his comments.

Mr Tilson: I think we have finally seen it. The accord is still on. There is no question about that. This support of each other on this terrible legislation has now become quite apparent, with respect to this discriminatory type of legislation.

There certainly was no notice of this compromise to our party. There was no discussion with our party. The Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party simply announced that this is going to be the amendment. They thought it was fair. They gave no logical reason as to where they were picking this 15% cap. They gave no logical reason as to why some people should get it and some people should not. As I indicated before, why not 20%? Why not 10%? Why not 25%? It was just a good figure. It was decided very quickly, and I do not think either party thought this amendment out and realized the unfair implications of it.

It quite clearly is a typical example of this government, with this legislation, that some people are more equal than others. Our party supports all of the people of this province, not just some of the people of this province. We support all of the tenants, we support all of the landlords, and it is becoming quite apparent to us -- the Liberal Party, of course, initially supported this legislation and is certainly is supporting this amendment, and that is regrettable.

I believe that this legislation will be challenged in the courts. We have already been put on notice by a large group of individuals that as soon as the bill has been passed, it will be challenged under the Constitution. This is a typical section. It is discriminatory. It is saying that some people can get the orders but other people cannot, orders that were granted under the previous legislation which was put forward by the Liberal government. People applied in good faith for those orders and obtained them. Now, of course, they are saying the orders are void, tough luck. On the other hand, 15% of the people who applied for them are saying it is okay, it is fair. It is creating two classes of individuals and we feel that is unfair.

I will not pursue it any more but I believe this particular amendment to section 8, subsection 83(3a) specifically, is discriminatory and should not be passed for the reasons I have indicated.

Section 8 agreed to.

1530

Section 9:

The Second Deputy Chair: Ms Poole moves that subsections 100b(1) and (2) of the act, as set out in section 9 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted:

"(1) Subject to subsection (2), this part applies to every application for rent increase filed after 28 November 1990.

"(2) This part does not apply to an application filed on or before the day that is 30 days after the Residential Rent Regulation Amendment Act, 1991 receives royal assent if the application,

"(a) is made under section 86 of the act; and

"(b) applies only to capital repairs in respect of which the landlord paid or owed money on or before 28 November 1990 for work that has been done."

Ms Poole: I hate to disappoint the critic for the third party, but I have to announce that the accord between the Liberals and the NDP has been a very short-lived one and this amendment will probably prove it.

When the minister first introduced the legislation and in the ensuing months, I made it very clear that the Liberal caucus does not have a problem with the principle and the intent of the bill. We have no problem, in fact we fully supported the attempts to enhance tenant protection and a period of stability while we took a long, hard look at the legislation to see in which way it could be improved.

Also, from the very beginning I have made it clear that we have deep concerns about this legislation, and the one that I am about to address right now is the retroactive provisions. The NDP government will say to the members, "It is retroactive to 1 October." Seven weeks. Big deal. This is mere illusion because this legislation is not retroactive for seven weeks. This legislation is retroactive for one year, two years, and in some cases three years, and is patently unfair.

Let's take a closer look at the 1 October date which is outlined in the legislation. It is a 1 October rent increase, not a 1 October application. When we are looking at capital repairs, we have to look at how the whole process works. In order to get a rent increase for making major repairs, replacements or renovations, a landlord has to apply to rent review 90 days in advance of the rent increase date. So the legislation automatically is not retroactive to 1 October. We have now got it very clear that it is retroactive to 1 July.

Members should take a closer look at the legislation. The capital work, the major repair, renovation or replacement, must be substantively completed before the landlord can even apply to rent review. So we are no longer talking about a date of 1 July. We have to have the repairs completed by 1 July before the landlord can apply. That means repairs the landlord did in the spring of 1990, and indeed cases in the winter or fall of 1989, are actually caught under this legislation, where under the law of the land the landlord went ahead in good faith, did these repairs or renovations, made his or her application months and months before anybody ever envisaged that the NDP would be in power and there would be a change in government. Lo and behold, here comes this retroactive legislation which says they are caught: "Sorry. Too bad. We know you went out and got a mortgage in order to pay for it. We know that the bank gave you the mortgage because they anticipated there would be revenues coming in, but too bad. That is the way things work."

Government members on the committee said: "Well, it was a bad investment. They took risks. What business is risk-free?" But I say when we cannot trust and abide by the law of the land and have confidence in it, then we are coming to a sad state of affairs in this province, because of all people, we in this House surely must believe the government of Ontario is the government of Ontario, be it NDP, be it Conservative, be it Liberal; that the government laws have to be the government laws, because people cannot have trust in us as government.

That is not to say laws cannot be changed. Of course laws can be changed. We are in an ever-changing society. But to change them without notice, without any grandfathering to buffer those who have been caught in the system, is not acceptable. It is not acceptable not only to myself as opposition Housing critic, not only to the critic for the third party, not only to a number of members of this House, but it is unacceptable to the people of Ontario. It is unacceptable to the legal counsel for the standing committee on regulations and private bills. Just on 27 March 1991 the legal counsel for that committee gave out a set of guidelines, and guideline 4 is that regulations should not have retrospective effect.

The solicitor for the committee spoke to this point. He said:

"Now, generally in the whole field of construction of law and analysis of law, there is a suspicion of legislation or regulations which act retrospectively, which sort of change the rules backwards in time so that people find out they were doing something legal or did not have an obligation on a certain date; a year later they find out they were wrong." That is one of our own government solicitors talking about the dangers of retroactivity.

One of the most eloquent statements that was made to our committee as we looked at Bill 4 was from the Housing Help Centre of Hamilton-Wentworth. This is a body that helps low-income tenants. They were there to fight on behalf of those people, but they put forward the premise that retroactivity is rarely justified and always dangerous. I think they hit the nail on the head. They asked the government to justify this. They said they saw nothing coming from the government that could justify the effects of the retroactivity.

The minister has stood in the House and has attempted to justify it by saying there were 100% rent increases, 150% rent increases, that the government could not stand for this, so this is why they brought in the retroactivity. But although I am aware of cases where these types of rent increases happened, only one twelve hundredth of 1% of applications on capital to rent review were over 100%. Let's get our facts straight. When we are talking about justifying this retroactivity, let's not drag out the bogeyman. There are changes that should and must be made to rent review; there are rent increases that are unacceptable. But let's deal with that problem not in the name of these 100% and 150% rent increases, saying we have to have this draconian retroactive provision to justify it. It does not work.

1540

The average rent increase across the province last year was 5.8%, and at rent review the average increase was 11%. In many areas of the province the average rent increase was far below inflation. So I say to government members that I think what they have done shows they are truly the NDP, but they are not the New Democratic Party; they are the non-democratic party. What they have done here has diminished the rights of each and every one of us. Sure, they have been able to hammer the landlords today. They say: "They're unpopular, nobody likes landlords, so let's hammer the landlords. Nobody will notice and nobody will care."

Who are they going to pick on next? Whose rights are they going to trample on next? "Let's pick the insurance companies. Nobody likes them either. Let's do the insurance companies or the lawyers: I am married to a lawyer. I know how unpopular they are, sometimes in my own household, so let's pick on the lawyers. Let's go after them and then the doctors." Why not pick on the teachers? Where is it going to end? Once they have trampled on one set of rights, it is that much easier to take it one step further. Maybe the government can simply hit all the taxpayers at the same time and save time and raise taxes retroactively. Why not? They have done it once; they can do it again.

One of the presentations to our committee on the retroactivity gave three examples that I think can put it down to every person's level, where you can understand how this would affect you retroactively if it were brought in. As a home owner, imagine having arranged a five-year mortgage at 11%, feeling secure in your new home, until after one year the mortgage company informs you it has declared void your mortgage and for the remaining four years the interest rate has been raised to 15%. As an employer, imagine new minimum wage laws being passed retroactive to 1986. As an employee, imagine your written employment contract simply being cancelled in midterm and your wages reduced. What it comes down to is a matter of fairness and trust. This legislation is going to affect how this government deals with its people and whether it will be trusted by the people.

One of the landlords wrote to me and said, "I am now in a new ballpark, playing a game without knowing the rules and because of retroactivity find that I have just struck out before going to bat." Members may laugh at that, but that is how many of the small landlords, the investors out there in Ontario, are feeling today. They do not feel a trust in government and they do not feel this government has been fair. But they can go home to sleep at night because the people in the NDP will say: "Yes, but the tenants will be happy. We will have pleased the tenants."

In the short term they will have pleased some tenants. They will please them until they find out that those capital repairs are not taking place or until they find out their landlord is now bankrupt because of the retroactivity and they have nobody at all who is minding the ship. They will feel pretty good about it until their maintenance starts to decline because of the air of hostility that has been generated by this government between landlords and tenants. I will say to members, there are a lot of tenants out there who disagree with what they have done.

There is a group of tenants who sent in a petition to our committee. They are tenants of a 56-unit apartment building at 1000 Huron Street in London, Ontario. The government has some NDP members from that area, so maybe members will want to pay some attention, even if they will not pay attention to the people who do not live in NDP ridings. I will quote members from this petition:

"Our landlord has continually striven to give us good rental accommodation at a fair price. Two years ago, when our parking lot became congested, our landlord decided to enlarge it for our benefit at his own expense. We are entitled to one parking space per unit according to our lease. However, he provided the extra space, which we now use for our second vehicles and our visitors' vehicles, without hesitation.

"We recently had the leaky roof replaced, new carpets installed in all apartments, new countertops and taps, new hall carpets and a beautiful new lobby installed. All of this work was carried out in a proper and legal fashion. All tenants in our building were agreeable to the 17% increase in rent, which our landlord legitimately applied for. We were all given written notification from the Ministry of Housing, informing us that we had 45 days in which to dispute the suggested increase, but we all knew that we had nothing to dispute, because every replacement in our building had been a necessary replacement. Not one of us baulked."

This is in capital letters, or upper case, I think the kids say today.

"WE ARE NOW LED TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU, SIR, ARE NOT GOING TO GRANT OUR LANDLORD HIS INCREASE IN RENT, AND WE WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU RETHINK THIS DECISION!

"As tenants, we are concerned that:

"Our landlord may be forced into selling our building to someone who will not look after us nearly as well as he does; and

"The level of care and consideration which we have received in the past will greatly deteriorate because our landlord cannot get a decent return on his investment.

"Your flagrant disregard of our wants and needs leaves us no alternative but to demand that you turn your attention away from landlords and tenants, because you obviously know nothing about this situation.

"In short, 'Don't call us, we'll call you!'"

This petition was signed by 54 tenants in a 56-unit building.

We had other tenant presentations before the committee, where they said that they were opposed to the retroactivity, particularly in relation to the capital repairs. The Bretton Place Tenants' Association felt so strongly about it that it had a press conference. We also had a presentation by the president of the Graydon Hall Manor Tenants' Association, actually three tenants' associations in North York, representing a large number of tenants. What they wrote about this retroactivity was:

"In all fairness, though we appreciate the intent of the legislation brought in to halt abuse in the rental industry by a relatively few landlords, unfortunately its retroactive provisions have caused real hardship for quite a number of honest, hard-working and decent landlords.

"We do not consider it at all fair or ethical to change the rules after the work has been done, except in very exceptional circumstances, and we consider it to be a well-intentioned but unfortunate error of judgement."

It is obvious that not only the landlords think this retroactivity is unfair; many tenants feel that way as well. The Hamilton Spectator, on 26 March, did an editorial on this issue, and it brought up a very valid point, the point that the retroactivity in particular has unnecessarily escalated the hostility between landlords and tenants in this province.

This is what the Spectator said in its editorial:

"In preparing a brand-new rent control law the New Democratic government should rise above the premise that the interests of tenants and landlords cannot be reconciled. The NDP, among its policy goals, wants to protect tenants against high rent increases and poor maintenance standards. That is a fair objective, but it should not be approached in an adversarial way. The government has a choice. It can encourage co-operation by all parties with realistic rent rules that recognize legitimate costs, or it can bring in strict new restrictions that will hamper necessary building maintenance, discourage construction of needed affordable housing and bring more hardship to the people whom rent control is supposed to help.

"Housing Minister Dave Cooke unfortunately has not shown much flexibility, judging by his dogged support of Bill 4, proposed by the NDP as a temporary rent law, pending a new long-term rent control system. Bill 4, now before the Legislature, has two serious flaws. It does not allow for capital improvements to be passed on to tenants if they exceed approved rent increases, and it would effectively reverse rent hikes that had previously been approved.

"It is disappointing that the NDP used its majority in committee to reject a number of constructive Liberal amendments. The Liberals suggested, among other things, that landlords be entitled to pass on capital costs subject to a cap of 5% above the guideline, if the work was needed to ensure the structural soundness of the building, protect tenants' health and safety and when most tenants agree.

"The retroactive provision, meanwhile, has justifiably been attacked as penalizing landlords who had started work before the NDP government was elected in accordance with the law at the time. As the bill stands, owners will not be able to charge higher rents to recover the money they have spent.

"Unless the government undertakes some necessary repairs to Bill 4, its credibility in drafting a workable, evenhanded rent control system will be suspect."

1550

I really agree with that analysis because what I think has happened, particularly because of the retroactive provisions which many people believe are unfair and unjust and very punitive, is that relations between landlords and tenants in this province will suffer.

I had a letter from Altus Property Management recently which highlighted what is now going to be happening. It was delivered to several tenants, and I shall not release their names because they have not given me any permission to make their names public. It says:

"Please find enclosed" -- the tenant's -- "January 1991 rent cheque in the amount of $19.51 and your repair receipts. I know that I had agreed to pay these bills to correct the damages caused by the previous tenant. When I made this agreement with you I was expecting to get certain rent increases which had already been granted or applied for. Now I find that the NDP has legislated me into a financial loss position and I am not able to live up to our agreement

"I must now ask you to pay your full January rent in the amount of $532.94. I do not intend to ask you to pay your December 1990 rent as I had already accepted your repair receipts over a month ago and no matter how hard I try, I cannot stoop to the level of our provincial government and make you pay retroactively.

"I'm sure you feel that it is disgusting that someone would tell you to spend money and you will be reimbursed only to find after spending the money that you will not. If you wish to call Premier Bob Rae or Housing Minister Dave Cooke, I am sure that they will be happy to explain that thanks to them this is the way business is now done in Ontario."

I think that about sums it up. If that is the way that business is now done in Ontario, pity Ontario and pity the people of Ontario. This is a very dangerous precedent that the minister and the government have established. They could go a long way to dispelling that distrust of government they have created through Bill 4 if they would make the retroactivity fair, as suggested in our amendment, make it retroactive to applications as of 28 November 1990, the date the legislation came in, and make a provision that if work had been completed up to that date, even if the work had not been subject to an application, that should be allowed to flow through.

I do not feel that is unreasonable. I think it is a very reasonable amendment and I think many tenants would accept it as fair. I am hoping the minister will reconsider his position and that the NDP members in this House today will reconsider their position on it and try to make this fair. I would like to vote for this bill on third reading, I would very much like to, and it is in the minister's hands whether he affords me that opportunity.

Hon Mr Cooke: This is the same amendment that, I believe, the Liberal Party put forward in committee, and we indicated at the time that we were not prepared to support it. We were not prepared to support it then and we are not prepared to support it now.

I think the member understands that even under the 1 October date that we have selected for Bill 4, there are 130,000 rental units in this province that go through the old system. So there are still 130,000 people who are left unprotected, left to the Liberal rent control legislation, Bill 51, which has so many loopholes in it that it really made it very ineffective for many tenants in this province, many tenants in the member's riding.

Bill 4, which is designed to protect tenants in this province -- and I think it is particularly important to protect tenants at a time of recession when incomes are dropping and people are in extremely difficult circumstances -- is estimated to be saving tenants nearly $46 million in not allowing some of the rent increases that the old Bill 51 allowed to go through. That is a significant amount of protection and that is a significant amount of relief that this piece of legislation provides for tenants in this province.

With specific respect to the retroactivity in the bill as described by the critic for the official opposition, she knows as well as I do that the selection of any date creates difficulties for certain people. If a date had been later in the calendar year, for example the date that she chose, then there would be tens of thousands of additional tenants who would have been unprotected and would have had substantial rent increases under the Liberal rent regulation act, which did not offer any real protection for tenants at all. That would have been, in my view, quite irresponsible.

As it is now, 130,000 units go through the system. Potentially, over another 100,000 would have gone through depending on the date that would have been chosen, the date that she chose, 28 November. It would, of course, have meant that three months later the bill would have taken effect and it would have virtually had no impact at all on protecting tenants, which is just simply unacceptable for a party and for a government that was elected with a great deal of support from tenants because they were frustrated, angered and unprotected by the old rent control legislation that the Liberal Party had brought in after the 1985 election.

I would just finish by saying one thing. We have stated very clearly where we stand and that is what I think people want to know: where politicians stand and where political parties stand. That is as important to the confidence that people in this province will have in the political system as anything the member for Eglinton raised a few moments ago.

It is very interesting and very revealing that the Liberal Party, on this piece of legislation, Bill 4, voted in favour of the bill on second reading, spoke in favour and against the bill on second reading, then railed against the bill for a few months and continued to tell some people that they voted in favour of it and other people that they have difficulty with it.

The mixed message that the Liberal Party is sending, for political reasons obviously, is unfortunate but I can tell the Housing critic for the Liberal Party that no one is fooled by this. They understand that what the Liberal Party is really saying is that another 100,000 or more units should go through the old rent review system and that the Liberal Party is not interested in real rent protection for tenants. They understand that very clearly.

We are trying to develop a permanent system, which I believe will offer permanent, real protection for tenants in this province but will also deal with some of the concerns that have been raised by the landlord community. The capital issue is one that I believe must be dealt with in the permanent system. But on a temporary basis, I think Bill 4 is appropriate, it offers real protection, and we will not accept this amendment because we stand by our commitment to offer that real protection to tenants.

1600

Ms Poole: I have a lot of difficulty with a number of the statements made by the minister. First of all, he does not seem to know where the Liberal Party stands. He is implying that he does not know and he of all people, if he bothered to listen, would know exactly where we stand.

He is saying that we are giving out mixed messages. There are no mixed messages. The Liberal Party has been consistent since the first day this was introduced. We have said that we agree with the principle of tenant protection and we are willing to give him a moratorium period in which to look for his long-term solutions. That is the principle.

Hon Mr Cooke: Except you want to water it down and kill it.

Ms Poole: No, it is not a matter of watering it down, but of making it fair. At the same time we said that we supported the principle which the minister stated, the principle where he said -- and these are the minister's own words -- that this was going to put a stop to luxury renovations, this was going to put a stop to outrageous rent increases. We agreed with him. We do not have a problem with that. Where we had a problem was in the execution of this bill. We felt that it could be made fair, after public hearings, after committee, with amendments, it was a piece of legislation that we could stand up and vote for on third reading. But the minister is making that absolutely impossible.

From day one he has been unwilling to look at our amendments. He has been unwilling to change his mind despite public statements that he has made that he thinks the abuse is by a few landlords. He still wants to make his political statement, and that is exactly what this is. This is a political statement so the minister can stand up and say, "Look, we're the ones protecting tenants." I can tell the minister that he is going on a few wrong assumptions. The first is he says that we as the Liberal Party want to leave 130,000 tenants unprotected. That is his definition, that they are not protected. I think many of those tenants would disagree with him and the statistics disagree with what he is saying; 5.8% is the average rent increase across the province.

Hon Mr Cooke: So now Bill 51 was okay.

Ms Poole: I am not saying that Bill 51 was perfect and I would never say it was perfect. I do not believe there are very many pieces of legislation passed either by this House or any other which are perfect, quite frankly. I hope the minister will be open-minded enough to have the same attitude, because how can we ever strive to improve if he automatically thinks, "If our government put its stamp of approval on it, then we can never say anything against it"? I do not believe in that and I do not believe the minister should believe in that, and have this single, narrow-minded approach where if the Liberals introduced it, it had to be bad, all of it, with nothing good. I do not believe that, just as I do not believe that when the government introduces something, it has to be all bad.

I can see some very strong redeeming features in Bill 4, but unfortunately the minister is ruining it. He is ruining it with the retroactivity. He is ruining it by refusing to make any provision for capital and for adding to the deterioration of our housing stock. He is ruining it by the fact that he makes no provision for maintenance -- which he as opposition critic stood up time after time and railed against -- saying, "This is only temporary." I will tell the minister, this may be temporary but it still has to be fair, it still has to bring stability to the industry, and that is what it has not done.

So when the minister throws out his accusations of not protecting tenants, he should at least try to be fair-minded. There are many protections that have been brought under the previous Liberal administration, but I have not wasted the minister's time or any of the members' time going into those time after time again, because I do not feel my job here is to defend our past performance as Liberals or as a government. If the minister wants the co-operation of the opposition parties, he is going to have to show some flexibility, he is going to have to show that he is listening to people, not going into committee with the idea that, "Bill 4 is perfect, Bill 4 can't be changed and we don't care" --

Hon Mr Cooke: How many of your amendments did we accept?

Ms Poole: The minister brings up the Liberal amendments that he accepted. This is the sum total of my success. I do not know whether to gloat or cry about them, quite frankly.

Hon Mr Cooke: Do both. You support the bill; you oppose it.

Ms Poole: Okay, I will try to do both. They are hard at the same time. The one amendment which the minister refers to was that a landlord cannot put through increases to municipal taxes if the municipality had gone in under a work order that had not been satisfied, done the work itself and then put an extra levy on the taxes. That was the one major amendment we got. I think it was a good amendment but, quite frankly, I do not think I could say it was the keystone of what was wrong with the bill.

The second amendment was addressed by the Conservative critic this morning, a compromise amendment on the conditional orders, which was capped. While I am pleased that we did get the amendment -- I think it brought more fairness to the bill -- again it did not go to the keystone of what we as a Liberal caucus have said is wrong with this bill.

While I thank the minister for pointing out the successes that we have had in committee, he will see there are still quite a few amendments that we are going through again in committee of the whole House because they were unsuccessful. I do hope the minister will reconsider his position and take a look at our amendments. It is never too late to change.

Hon Mr Cooke: Let me just put some statistics before the member. She will realize -- and I did not use the numbers with her moments ago but I will now -- if the moratorium were to apply only to applications made after 28 November 1990, which is her amendment, it would have very little effect. For example, currently there are only 240 application for whole-building review, affecting 8,673 units, that have been filed after 28 November 1990.

As well, by tying the provision of Bill 4 to applications filed after 28 November 1990, the earliest rent increase that would be affected by Bill 4 would be 1 March 1991, which means the rent increases under the old rules would continue until 28 February 1992, and phase-ins beyond that date. This amendment is not simply an amendment designed to make Bill 4 fairer, as the member would describe it; it is an amendment designed to destroy Bill 4 and kill the protection that is offered for tenants. The member should be honest about it.

Ms Poole: I just want to comment. I know the member for Ottawa-Rideau wants to make some comments about the retroactivity, but I have never seen such a silly manipulation of statistics in my life. Of course, there have been only a couple of hundred applications since 28 November. Why would a landlord apply when the minister has brought in legislation? They would have applied, but his legislation has stopped them from applying. That is what the moratorium is. Why would a landlord bother to apply when the minister has got legislation on the books saying, "Don't bother applying because we're not going to look at it"?

If the minister is telling me that between 28 November and today, which is some four months, had the system continued in place, there would have been only 200 applications, I am sorry, I just do not buy that. The minister's moratorium would have still had the same force and effect after 28 November. It would do what he wanted to do, which is put a stop to the system after 28 November while he takes a look at his long-term legislation. So he should not manipulate the figures and he should not be silly about it.

Mr Tilson: I have put the committee on notice that our party will have an amendment to this section which deals with the date of royal assent as being the appropriate date that we feel the legislation should take place. Hopefully, it will not take place. However, this amendment was supported by our party at committee and we intend to support it now.

Basically, this amendment deals with where a landlord and a tenant in a particular unit agree, and that seems fair to me. It seems fair, I think, to all of us that when two parties agree to a specific position, why should the government come along and say: "Forget it. Scrap it"? There are situations that have been presented to us at the hearings where a landlord and a tenant agreed with respect to a specific increase and there was no difficulty with that. This government comes along and says, "Notwithstanding that, that's void." In that respect, our party supports the Liberal proposal.

1610

As well, dealing with clause 100b(2)(b), obviously if a landlord has paid for the work or owes money where the work has been done, why should he not be allowed under the current rules to receive that compensation? It is most unfair changing the rules in midstream. Based on those principles, we support the amendment. The government has obviously put us on notice that it will be voting against it. They voted against it at the committee, and by the heckles, I assume they are going to vote against it now.

This issue of retroactivity was probably -- from my assessment, at least, from the hearings, the going around the province and here -- the most major of all the concerns that the people of this province had. It is not fair. It is simply not fair to change the rules in midstream. It has a completely detrimental effect on the economy of this province, on the trust of this province. It costs jobs. I cannot believe that this government, which heard the representations made by different people from all walks of life, from all occupations, opposing this principle, has not listened to it.

I think that this does not cover all of the issues, but it is a fair amendment. I cannot understand why the government will not support it, because that is the issue: Is this legislation fair? The members opposite should ask themselves this question: Is it fair? Is this principle fair? We had landlords coming to this hearing, breaking down because of their faith in the province of Ontario, because they are going to go bankrupt, they are going to lose their life savings.

An hon member: Tough break.

Mr Tilson: That is right. The government simply says, "Tough." Do the members opposite have no compassion for these people, people who believe in this province and in this country? The government changed the rules. It had no right to do that and I think it is going to find that, because it is going to be challenged in the courts.

There was one delegation, the Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization, which drew to our committee's attention several principles as to the side-effects of retroactivity, and I would like to emphasize some of those points because I think they are good points that hopefully the government members will reconsider in supporting this amendment.

The first one was that a long-term side-effect of retroactivity is the confidence of the potential builders and lenders in the rental housing industry. We had delegation after delegation come to us and say: "We're not going to trust the province of Ontario. They changed the rules. Why should we invest in the housing industry?"

Hon Mr Cooke: They said the same thing about you. They did, so be fair about it.

Mr Tilson: Well, I am listening. Members opposite went around this province and listened to these people come, people from inside this province and outside this province, and they simply said, "We're not going to invest, we're not going to build in this province, because of this regressive legislation that this government is putting forward." They have made it quite clear that they have lost faith in the province of Ontario. They are saying: "No way, forget it, because this government is going to make housing a public utility. Private enterprise is out. We don't believe in private enterprise in the housing industry. We're not going to encourage people to invest or build in this province. We're going to do it. The taxpayer of this province is going to build the housing of this province."

The second side-effect that was put forward by the Eastern Ontario Landlord Organization was that potential builders and landlords will demand higher returns to risk their money on any investment in rental housing, and this means higher building costs and higher borrowing costs. I think this is a generous concession by this association. I doubt very much whether there will be any building of apartment units as a result of this legislation, because of the lack of faith in the housing policies of this government.

This is certainly one of the cornerstones of our economy, where we are going to live with our families. Our quality of life is certainly going to deteriorate. We have had witness after witness state that to us. Clearly, it will result in higher building costs. It will result in higher borrowing costs -- testimony has been given to that effect -- because if there are any loans given at all, the risk is higher, so naturally the costs go up; the stakes go up. This government has not considered that. I think this amendment will address some of that faith. It will not resolve all of it, but it will restore some faith to the province of Ontario.

The third side-effect that was put forward by this organization was that since rental housing cannot generate higher returns, this means less private building will take place, and that is the sum of it. What is this province doing to encourage private enterprise to build apartment buildings or housing units of any sort in the province of Ontario? The answer is nothing.

They have indicated what they are going to do. They are going to have government housing. They are going to have the taxpayers pay for the housing in this province. For the life of me, when we are in one of the worst recessions that we have seen and when we have seen the spending of this government keep climbing and climbing, now it is going to get into housing. It cannot handle anything else, but it certainly cannot handle housing. I do not know where the government expects it is going to get the money to fund this housing.

There were numerous depositions that were given to us in opposition to this one issue -- there was a whole slew of issues, but this one issue -- which was retroactivity.

Another one was made to us by the president of Havenbrook Realty Co in North York. They talked about how there was a violation of trust. I think that is something for all individuals who had anything to do with housing, whether it is tenants, whether it is small landlords, whether it is large landlords, or whether it is the investors, whether it is the people who work for the landlords, the jobs that are generated as a result in the housing industry: There has been a violation of trust. Allan Shiff of this corporation made several comments which I would like to put into the record dealing with the violation of trust. He stated at the committee:

"There is a basic principle in contract law which holds that once two parties have made a commitment to each other, each shall be legally bound by that commitment until the termination of the contract or until both parties agree mutually to dissolution. It does not seem unreasonable to expect a standard of conduct from the Legislature of Ontario which is at least equal to the ethical principles established in the laws that govern us all.

"The provisions of Bill 4, introduced by Housing Minister Cooke in November 1990, include a refusal to allow increases to cover the cost of repairs and maintenance, retroactive to 1 October 1990. The 1986 rent review legislation insisted that landlords could not apply for consideration of capital repair costs until after those repairs had been completed. In addition, decisions were not rendered for six to 12 months thereafter."

This sounds like a legal opinion, and it certainly is in legal jargon. When you make a contract, whether it be with a government or whether it be with an individual, you expect that contract to be honoured, and this government has not honoured the contract that was put forward by the existing housing legislation.

Mr Shiff went on to state:

"You have already observed the anguish and despair of small landlords who have testified before your committee, men and women who have spent their working lifetimes building an equity in a duplex or a triplex, only to discover that this retroactive legislation may mean the loss of all their security. These are people who trusted the government to abide by its commitment, people who have discovered that the government changed the rules after the game had started."

1620

That is the simple gist of the problem of this legislation. They have changed the rules after the game had started.

He went on to say:

"Major owners will sustain from small to severe losses this proposed legislation will create through their corporate entities. It is also vital to remember that more than half of all the rental units in Ontario are owned by small landlords, with fully one third of the units in single-unit structures or duplexes."

I find it a terrible thing for the Housing minister to say that all landlords are bad. There are some bad landlords. There are some bad tenants, and again, I think it is a question of fairness. It is a question of looking at the economy of this province, and that is exactly what our party is doing. We want the economy of this province to be strong, we want the faith in this province to be maintained, both from within and without, and this government has violated the trust that people from within the province and outside the province have.

He says:

"I would submit that the retroactivity proposed by Bill 4 violates all standards of fairness and would stand as a permanent stain upon the record of a government committed to protecting the rights and interests of all Ontarians."

That is what this party, the NDP, has indicated it does. Clearly it is like all the other pieces of legislation that it has been putting forward. It has flip-flopped, and all of a sudden it is not fair; it is not protecting all of the rights and interests of all Ontarians.

He says:

"It should not be necessary to point out that instituting retroactive and punitive penalties for any isolated group of individuals is a swift road to the destruction of business confidence in all sectors of this government. I cannot express strongly enough the personal and financial distress that the present situation has created. It is both inhumane and exceedingly poor management to demand that all parties to this proposed legislation wait for up to one or two years while the minister deliberates."

We still have not seen the final legislation. This government was quite clear as to where it was going in the last election. Six months have gone by and all we have is, "We want time to consult." It seemed to know what it was going to do last August, and what it now wants is more time.

"A pro tempore committee must be created to render decisions on cases where the landlord acted in good faith under the former legislation."

That is what the president of Havenbrook Realty Co said, and I think it does sum up a lot of the representations that were made to our committee.

A further comment that was made with respect to retroactivity was made by the Ontario Home Builders' Association. It talked about retroactivity as being the ultimate policy error, and I think that was, as I indicated, the major concern of the delegations that appeared before us.

They were concerned with other issues. They were concerned with the fact that this government does not deal with, how are capital expenditures going to be made?

They were also concerned with the fact that one third of the tenants of this province cannot afford any increases. This government that claims it is in favour of supporting all tenants is not doing anything to those people, is not doing anything to the one third of the tenants of this province who say, "We can't afford any of the increases that you are proposing." The government has not offered any solutions as to what it is going to do with those people.

They are letting those people live in more deteriorating conditions, having to move elsewhere because they cannot afford where they are living: seniors who are on fixed income; students, many of whom have worked hard over the summer to pay the high tuition rates that this government is now embarking on and cannot afford to receive their education, and now we are getting into the fact that they cannot afford to live because of the rent increases that are being put on by this government.

This government is saying that in the first year it is going to be 4.6%; in the second year it is going to be 5.4%. One third of the tenants of this province cannot afford those increases. What is it going to do about those people? I have not heard any proposals whatsoever. I have not heard any proposals as to what it is going to do in this moratorium period. Its answer is, "Tough; just carry on."

The Ontario Home Builders' Association stated:

"The transitional rules of Bill 4 are perhaps the most regressive aspect of the legislation. By prohibiting applications, orders and phase-ins which have an effect date of 1 October 1990, the government will wipe out the investments made by hundreds of landlords who applied for and received rent increases to cover legitimate capital improvements."

That does not account for the people who have spent money. The money has been spent. They have gone to the bank, they have put mortgages on their homes, they have put mortgages on their buildings, and now this government says, "Tough." They do not know where they are going to get the money. They come to my office. I am sure they come to the minister's office. I am sure they come to the Liberal critic's office, saying, "We have no idea where we're going to get this money."

The standing committee has heard of numerous examples of just how far back in time the retroactive aspect of the legislation will apply. Many landlords have, in good conscience, made commitments in anticipation of recouping their investments. Bill 4 unfairly punishes them for their forward planning, especially small landlords, whose rental investments take up a larger share of their equity.

On 8 February 1991, in the Financial Post, the Minister of Housing indicated that Bill 4 was introduced to stop the system in its tracks by placing a moratorium on high rent increases. The only thing that has been stopped in its tracks by Bill 4 is this government's purported commitment to fair and honest policymaking, and that is it. Where did all the fair and honest policymaking that they promised in the last election go? Where did it go? It certainly is not in Bill 4. It certainly is not in their housing policy. It has disappeared.

Again, some people are more equal than other people. They have allowed rent increases. I would say Mr Thom, who introduced a report that took several volumes which this government has never considered, certainly in Bill 4, estimated, I believe, and I cannot remember specifically, but I think it was 10% of the tenants in this province are well off. They are driving cars that are better than most of the cars that we have and they are living in expensive housing accommodation and they are just laughing at the government. They do not care. Their increases are nominal. They can well afford the increases. So again, some people are more equal than other people as far as this government is concerned.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association continues by saying:

"The high rent increases which the government keeps referring to are few in number. Their own statistics bear that out. Yet we still hear about the prevalence of triple-digit rent increases and the economic eviction of people by the thousands. As the Fair Rental Policy Organization pointed out in its submission to the committee, less than 1% of Ontario's rental units received increases of 30% or more. Only seven one hundredth of 1% fall into the 100%-and-over category for increases.

"It would seem appropriate, therefore, for the government to act responsibly by credibly and statistically illustrating the magnitude of the problem it perceives, rather than simply parading out the individual situations which we all agree should be dealt with in a just manner."

What about the tenants who can afford the increases? What about the tenants who cannot afford the increases? There is no question that this government does not care. They are just willy-nilly putting forward all increases.

"It is not only landlords who have been hurt by the retroactive application of the bill. The renovation industry and the material supply companies which rely upon it have been damaged as well."

We have heard delegation after delegation come to us and say that work that had been planned for the buildings has been cancelled as a result of this retroactive legislation. Thousands of people have lost their jobs as a result of this legislation. They are out of work. The supply companies: Contracts that had been anticipated to be received for supplies and badly needed materials to renovate the buildings to keep them up have been cancelled. Those companies have been hard hit by the recession badly enough, and this legislation has made it even worse.

He goes on to say: "This is especially important because of the depressed state of our economy. Renovation work is extremely labour-intensive and accounts for almost as much activity as does new home construction. Bill 4 ensured yet one more reason for an employer to make cutbacks."

That is exactly what has happened. Fact after fact has been presented to this committee and has been ignored by this government. What are they going to do about all the lost jobs and all the lost contracts that were caused by this government?

"The day after the legislation was announced, landlords who had committed to work or were already under way with repairs saw the possibility of not being able to finance their capital investments. Their reaction was not unreasonable and swift. They cancelled renovation projects and threw out of work hundreds of workers."

That is a question that this government has not addressed. They have not commented, and I invite the minister to respond as to what he proposes to do with the hundreds and thousands of people who have lost their jobs as a result of this very, very regressive legislation.

1630

The Ontario Home Builders' Association continues by saying:

"Our association cannot understand why this government, with its first major policy move on housing, encouraged a decrease in employment in the construction industry. If the province, with its permanent version of a new rent control law, fails to take into account legitimate capital improvements, more job losses will be felt in the future."

We are feeling them already. Work that normally is to go on scheduled plans -- because there are good landlords. There are landlords who have set forward plans as to how to improve their buildings. Roofs that need to be done are not going to be done; they are not going to be repaired. Underground garages that badly need repairs are not going to be repaired because of this legislation. Brick work that needs to be done is not going to be done. The tenants' quality of life will severely fall as a result of this very, very regressive legislation, and it is already being felt.

"The other major group to be hurt by this legislation will be the very people the government believes it is helping, namely, the tenants themselves. Bill 4 will accelerate the eventual decay and deterioration of Ontario's rental housing stock. It will do this by making it economically impossible for landlords to pay for the costs of repairing heating systems, balconies, plumbing systems and leaking roofs."

Some 75% to 80% of the buildings of this province are over 20 years old and they have decaying plumbing systems and decaying electrical systems. They need to be repaired. You cannot foresee that. It has to be done. How is it going to be done, this retroactive legislation where people have planned for that and in many, many cases have already done it, spent money on it and the work has been done? This government says: "Tough. You're out of luck."

The Ontario Home Builders' Association continues to state:

"While landlords will suffer, tenants who have put up with the resultant problems will be hurt as well. This does not bode well for our housing stock. The Ministry of Housing estimates that the current stock needs $10 billion in repairs in order to bring it up to existing standards. Unfortunately Bill 4 will make the likelihood of those repairs more uncertain.

"It was interesting to note that the Minister of Housing recently made a commitment of $15 million to the repair of rental buildings. This amount could be eaten up by the repair costs for three or four parking garages which have succumbed to salt corrosion. Is the government prepared to hand over subsequent amounts as more problems are identified? As indicated earlier, the taxpayers of Ontario cannot afford this type of policy direction.

"So the precedent which the province has set by stopping all orders as of 1 October 1990 is a harmful one indeed. There is little justification for changing the rules of the game after the game has started. There is absolutely no legitimate reason for doing it based on misleading information and political rhetoric."

That, of course, is exactly what this government is doing, suggesting that this bill was implemented because of the marble foyers and the high number of escalating rent increases. As the Ontario Home Builders' Association has indicated, that simply is not the fact.

This legislation is affecting all walks of life. It is affecting the small landlord, and we had small landlord after small landlord, individuals who are renting out one or two units. It is affecting those people as well. I just took one deposition at random and I would like to comment on that one. This is from Lampeter Investments Ltd from Toronto, the property manager, who is Israel Janowski. Mr Janowski in a very brief deposition commented with respect to the retroactive issue of this legislation:

"The following is our submission concerning Bill 4. The proposed retroactive freeze will have a devastating impact on our company. We have undertaken major capital improvements costing over $1 million. This work includes replacement of the roof and plumbing risers and major garage repairs. Independent consultants attested to the fact that ongoing repairs have been performed extensively. The consultants determined that complete replacement and major repair would now be necessary. Spot repairs would no longer be effective or feasible. In good faith, we performed the work based on existing legislation."

This is one of the companies that did the work based on the existing legislation and it did that with every expectation of recouping these very legitimate extraordinary expenses. That was under the existing legislation.

"The unfair retroactive freeze has put an end to that. We were unable to rent two huge four-bedroom penthouse apartments for about three years and decided to renovate them and create four smaller three-bedroom apartments. The proposed rents, tentatively approved by the rental housing protection office in city hall, would be affordable and the project would add additional rental housing stock. Our research indicated these apartments would be very desirable. With green lights from all necessary agencies we invested well over $10,000 in planning, engineering, architects, etc. The proposed new legislation has now killed the project because, due to the freeze, we would now not be able to bring the new rents in line with our construction costs. We have lost $10,000 spent in good faith and the community has lost additional housing stock."

Here are some people who are prepared to provide more housing stock, yet this government is not only not encouraging new housing stock to be built, it is discouraging people from building new housing stock.

"We have received approval from the city of Scarborough and the city of North York to build 44 rental town houses at two sites. These projects are to be models for future infill proposals which could potentially add significant numbers of affordable housing units throughout the province. An additional 13 units are being proposed for a city of Toronto site. Six years of planning and many thousands of dollars have gone into these projects thus far. We are now being counselled by our legal advisers not to proceed with these town houses due to the unpredictability of new and possibly harmful retroactive legislation."

Here are some people who have planned. This government says: "Well, you should have planned for it. You should have set aside and made plans for how you are going to maintain your buildings, how you are going to improve the number of housing units." These people did exactly what this government has asked them to do, and now they cannot do it because this government has changed the rules in midstream.

Mr Janowski says:

"We are not a large company. We have, however, the opportunity to add to the depleted rental housing stock in a way that would benefit the community. It is most unfortunate that the very negative climate brought on by the proposed legislation will definitely cause us to cease our own modest activity in this area."

That was an example of individuals who had planned ahead, who are not the large, greedy landlords that are referred to by the government, and who are playing the game in good faith and simply now they cannot proceed with their renovations and they cannot proceed with the construction of new units, all because of the retroactivity of this legislation. Almost every person who came to us talked about the retroactive aspect of this legislation and how it is having a disastrous effect on the economy of this province.

There was a comment with respect to the retroactive aspect by a Lawrence Cyna. He made a representation to us in February and he talked about the unconscionable attitude of retroactivity penalizing people who obey the law. I think that is what the retroactive aspect is all about, people who have obeyed the law. This government is not obeying the law and I think it is going to find out that it has broken the law, because there will certainly be litigation instituted against the province of Ontario, at great cost to the taxpayer of this province. It is going to create more uncertainty than the uncertainty government has already caused the people of this province.

1640

Mr Cyna states:

"Although I have limited resources that are being totally consumed by the daily losses in this property, I was forced shortly after buying this building" -- this is a building that is in North York. He says he "was forced shortly after buying this building, to face a new law that required me to spend thousands of dollars in making detailed and lengthy applications for rent increases to mitigate some of these losses. I would remind you that every penny received in rent, together with my own funds, was put solely into making a decent basic building liveable. There have been no frills added to the building, and no money spent on upgrades simply to be able to apply for this highly publicized 'capital expenditure solely for the purpose of raising rent.'"

Again, here is a landlord who was proceeding in good faith to improve the quality of life of his tenants.

He states:

"These applications were terribly unfair to me and to other landlords as they were heavily weighted against landlords. They allowed no increases until the matter was heard, which in my case took almost two years. During this time the tenants were not obligated to pay the expected increases, and most tenants are now aware that the high cost of trying to collect these retroactive increases so long after the fact, and the high cost of trying to enforce these orders, makes collection of these retroactive increases almost impossible. I actually collected an insignificant amount of these moneys. Is it fair for the government to acknowledge that these moneys are rightfully due, but make their collection so difficult that the situation is actually a legalized confiscation of my own money in favour of the tenants?

"The current governmental proposal is unheard of in a democratic society. To actually force me to lose such a large sum of money as to threaten my personal viability by preventing me from collecting moneys that legally belong to me, to force me to spend large amounts of additional money (and tremendous time and effort), to follow government bureaucracy in order to establish plain facts that it would only take an observer an hour or two to understand once he saw the situation, and then years later when the validity of my situation was agreed to by all, to bring out a retroactive law to prevent me from instituting those increases on a phase-in basis (exactly in accordance with governmental policy)" -- and that is what he did; he followed the government policy, the law that exists in this province today -- "amounts to a retroactive enormous penalty. It amounts to being penalized for following the law." That is what this legislation does. It penalizes people who have followed the law, the landlords who have followed the law of this province.

He goes on to state:

"While I realize that a different political party now controls the government, basic democratic principles surely must be followed, and people cannot be penalized for being lawful." Why are the people of this province being penalized for being lawful? "Regardless of anyone's political views, surely I as a citizen have basic rights established over many centuries. This horrible proposal is truly unconscionable."

I would like to comment on one further item which was put forward to us in February, again with respect to the retroactive legislation. It talks about the retroactive nature of the legislation and what a detrimental affect it had on the Schickedanz Bros Ltd.

This is a letter from a Gary K. F. Pepper supporting this corporation. It is a letter to the Minister of Housing, and it states:

"I am told that your ministry has stated that they would not allow rental applications to go forward after 1 October 1990. I am given to understand that Schickedanz Bros has followed all the requirements of the former government's legislation, regulations and all the procedures of the Residential Rent Regulation Act and proceeded to improve his apartment buildings based on these. Under those guidelines he was rightfully anticipating that he would be awarded a rental increase to offset the capital expenditures that he incurred. Most of the expenditures have been made and the buildings are much better for it." This falls exactly into the member for Eglinton's amendment. That is exactly the type of situation that her amendment is trying to cover. "He would not, and neither would you, spend 'one cent' on capital improvements if there was not some understanding that moneys could be reimbursed somehow."

And again, moneys that have been spent -- moneys are owed and the work has been done -- is what this amendment applies to.

"If the above apparent retroactivity is true then I would say it is unequivocally wrong, dead wrong. All you had to do, and what you still can do, is establish a policy that allows applications to be processed where it can be established that written contracts have been entered into by the landlord prior to a date of your picking." That is the first item of the amendment.

"I would like to repeat. Schickedanz is an honourable, fine and fair landlord. He should not be treated so dastardly, as apparently he has been, by your ministry and/or your government. Not only do I speak about Schickedanz Brothers but also for any other such landlord who has been so treated. I am totally disheartened and distressed by apparent retroactive actions on the part of your ministry. I will do everything in my power to get rid of totalitarianism if this is the case."

I would like all members to think about that, because that is something that they should consider after hearing delegation after delegation talk about the unbelievable effect that this retroactive legislation has had on the people of this province.

ManuLife Real Estate made a delegation to us on 8 February 1991 and also talked about the retroactive aspect of this legislation. They stated:

"By selecting the first effective date of an application as the cutoff point, there is automatically retroactivity. An application has to be filed at least 90 days before the first effective date specified in the application. This means that the bill is effectively retroactive to 2 July 1990, 90 days prior to 1 October 1990."

If you read the amendment carefully, it is not 1 October that this is retroactive to; it is 1 July 1990. It is even more dastardly when you start examining the overall effect of this provision.

"In order to make an application by 2 July 1990 for capital expenditures, the work being claimed would have to be substantially completed by that date." Again, a valid reason for the amendment that is being proposed. "These capital expenditures may have been started a year earlier in July 1989. Of course, the landlord would have made its decision to proceed with the work some time prior to July, to allow time for plans, tenders and financing arrangements. Retroactivity has thus been extended back to 1989." And there are examples of that.

"Bill 4 takes another step further back in time. It provides that the minister will ignore a conditional order...which has already been issued. Under the RRRA, a landlord could apply to the minister, indicating planned capital work. Tenants were given a chance to object, then the ministry order would tell the landlord what allowance would be given if the proposed work were actually done.

"A landlord may have obtained an advance ruling in 1988, to ensure the planned work was feasible, then carried out the improvements starting in 1989. If the landlord filed its follow-up application to obtain the proposed allowance in July 1990 it was too late.

"Further retroactivity occurs in the provision that the minister will treat all notices of phase-in with effective dates on or after 1 October 1990 as void. Notices of phase-in are issued in the years subsequent to an issued order if the amount of the rent increase allowed in the order exceeded the maximum 'cap' provided in the RRRA. This normally applies to financial or economic loss or rent equalization. Phase-ins are designed to protect tenants from a large increase in one year.

"By rendering these phase-ins void, landlords are denied the recovery of a rent increase allowed by an order issued, quite possibly, prior to 1988." So again, when you analyse this legislation, the retroactivity could go back as far as 1988.

1650

"No one anticipated retroactive changes that would deny costs already incurred by landlords in accordance with the law or that would wipe out orders already issued. This retroactivity has been decried by all sectors, tenants as well as landlords, real estate investors, contractors, suppliers, tradespeople, labourers and the business community at large.

"Tenants can be protected from excessive rent increases pending new permanent rent review legislation without the damage that Bill 4 would cause if passed as proposed."

I would like to read one final item into the record as an illustration of the problems of this retroactive legislation. This is a remark that was made to us by Carmela Columba, who is from Weston. She describes the ownership of her building: "My husband is a tradesperson and my father is a retired construction worker. This building was purchased as an investment for retirement planning." That is another issue. People have purchased their buildings for retirement purposes. They do not all have fancy pension plans and other plans that many of the people in the government have.

"When this residential complex was purchased in 1986, my husband and father put in over 43% equity towards the acquisition cost of the residential complex. Although we had put this much money from our savings into the building, the monthly expenses exceed the revenue and we continue to put more money into the building each and every month.

"Both my father and my husband do work at the residential complex to cut down on costs. I do all the books and record-keeping. We all take a great deal of pride in running our building and sometimes it is not an easy job.

"We filed an application with the Minister of Housing to claim a portion of our financial loss and some, not all, of the capital expenditures we have put into the building since our acquisition. If this proposed legislation goes through, it will eliminate our ability to claim the rest of our financial loss and any possibility of return for moneys spent on capital expenditures, to say nothing of the hard, physical work that they have put into this building to try and save costs.

"Our building, therefore, will be running at a financial loss for ever. What can we do?" What can they do? What can they do if legislation such as this, although temporary legislation, is interim legislation, but it is having a devastating effect on these people and many people like them?

"We are not rich people. Our tenants' rents are very reasonable. The average rent for these two-bedroom apartments, as 1 February 1990, was only $501.49.

"Please reconsider this terrible piece of legislation and provide us with the opportunity of at least breaking even on our investment. We cannot continue to subsidize people who in many cases have opportunities to make more money than our family."

That is what this government is asking the landlords of this province to do, to subsidize a very serious social problem. There is a social problem. I have indicated that 30% of the tenants of this province cannot afford any increases. Why is the government placing this burden, this heavy responsibility on the landlords of this province? They know the landlords do not have the financial resources to subsidize, and it is not the landlords' obligation.

"We are honest people who bought a building based on the laws at that time. Please don't change them now and take away the rights that we had. If this legislation goes through, then we probably cannot even sell our building as we are told that no one would want to buy any buildings if this legislation goes through. We are also told that your proposed legislation would drop the value of our property by almost 35%."

Clearly we had individual after individual who came to us and said, "Because of Bill 4 the value of our buildings will be depreciated." Who wants them? Why would you invest in buildings such as this where you are not even going to break even, you are going to lose? Why would you invest in those buildings?

She goes on to say: "Why would you do this at a time when we should be encouraging investment in Ontario? A recession is not a good time to discourage people from investing in our beautiful province."

Those are my comments at this time.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments on Ms Poole's amendment?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I rise today to talk about what became the real issue with Bill 4, and that was the retroactivity. It seemed to be the issue that united all because of its implications for fairness.

What I am sorry about in the introduction of this retroactivity, which I feel is a really unnecessary part of this bill, is that it has created an environment of confrontation. As we are going into a serious discussion paper that the government has presented, it has created this environment which I do not think will bring forth fruitful discussion. It has threatened partnerships that have been built over many years between tenants and landlords, and I certainly do feel it could have been avoided rather easily.

As the member for Ottawa-Rideau, a riding located in Ottawa-Carleton, and as a member of the standing committee on general government, I have received a significant number of comments from the Ottawa-Carleton region regarding the impact of Bill 4 on the business community in this growing but sometimes, perhaps often, overlooked region of our province.

As our board of trade has quickly discovered, any landlord in our community of Ottawa-Carleton who has performed major repairs or renovations, has made application through the Residential Tenancy Commission and has legitimately obtained an order permitting rental increases which are to take effect after 1 October 1990, will now not be able to enforce such an order, even though he or she planned and acted under existing legislation and -- this is the crux of this matter -- acted in the best interests of the tenants, except and only if he or she is among the very few who had conditional orders right in hand on 28 November 1990. They are few and far between.

May I repeat that these landlords acted under existing legislation, in good faith. A landlord is now retroactively being told: "Too bad. We are not playing by the old rules. We are playing by the new rules." But these rules are retroactive. May I ask if this is fair. Is this to be expected from a government that is to serve the people, a government that is to be known as open and consultative? This government is penalizing these people who acted in good faith, real people, people who operated under existing legislation.

In addition to this, the most damaging part of the legislation is its retroactivity. I looked in the dictionary for the definition of "retroactivity," and I feel the definition is worth stating. It is "operating in a backward direction," and certainly Bill 4 operates in a backward direction. It gives more than negative messages to investors, both worldwide and Canadian, that there is little if any security in depending on existing legislation when making necessary financial predictions in the province of Ontario.

I would like to bring to this House three letters I received from investors in Europe.

The first investor is from Germany, "I am convinced that any retroactive legislation will have a serious, negative impact in the international business community and will lead to the reduction of foreign investment in Canada." This reaction was unsolicited. Another from Europe is dated 4 March: "These investments have been made in trust and reliance on existing and valid Ontario law. In all our worldwide dealings we have never encountered such a radical violation of the basic principles of law."

Third: "We have received financing from various banks on the basis of rent control decisions which now seem to be null and void causing the banks to withdraw their financing or ask for additional collateral. This in turn forces us to sell properties, taking losses and withdrawing from Ontario."

1700

I find this all extremely worrisome and, as I said to a group I was speaking to last Thursday in Ottawa, although I am a perennial optimist, at this moment, with these kinds of messages and these kinds of letters coming to my desk, I have a great deal of trouble being optimistic about the messages that are going from the present government regarding economic stability and the planning of this present government. I want to repeat that the landlords I am talking about acted under existing legislation. They acted in good faith and they are being told, "Too bad."

The Real Estate Board of Ottawa-Carleton pointed out to the committee, our committee on general government, that the retroactive element of Bill 4 is a great concern. These landlords applied for rent increases in good faith. They planned repairs and maintenance accordingly and have already carried out the necessary renovations and will consequently be unable to recover their investment under Bill 4. As a result, some of them may be forced into personal bankruptcy and they told us so, one after the other. Others will lose all or part of their current or retirement investment income, that which has been earned or planned over many years. There were certainly cases brought before us as actual properties, rental properties in Ottawa-Carleton that had depreciated in value since the introduction of this bill.

The real estate board with its facts and statistics that were relevant and up to date went on to comment:

"By not permitting any allowance for renovations already approved, the economic impacts are going to be far greater than anyone can possibly predict at this time. The cancellation of renovation contracts and resulting loss of construction jobs, as well as the reluctance of property owners to replace aging, and in some cases only marginally habitable, rental housing must cost the Ontario economy hundreds of millions of dollars."

Lending institutions, as others have said in this debate, are becoming reluctant to either lend or refinance mortgages on rental property. That is a serious matter. We have had witnesses bring to our attention that they have been told: "You are no longer an acceptable risk. Your cash flow is too uncertain. Your investment has depreciated." In addition the investors, the people whose letters I have read, will not build new rental units if they know if they begin that they may never hope to recover their cost in rental income. Certainly the building industry has brought this message through many members to this House and to this government.

Many people are already discouraged from investing in existing rental property in Ontario and they have brought that message over and over to each of us. I underline that Bill 4 discourages the building of rental accommodation by the private sector, investment being much simpler and more secure in areas other than housing, or locations other than Ontario. Thus Bill 4 in the end will not benefit tenants. Their choices will continue to be more limited and certainly the shortage of affordable accommodation will continue. Bill 4 should not apply to any approved application for rent increases no matter when the effective date of the order is. Furthermore, any application currently in the system should be permitted to proceed. Simple fairness: This is what we are requesting, but Bill 4 continues to progress, with this government's approval, denying cost recovery for major repairs even though they were made or contracted before the bill was announced and even, in some cases, before 6 September 1990 when this government was elected.

The moratorium should apply only to new applications commenced after 28 November 1990 -- a very simple request, a request that is based on fairness. The date this legislation was tabled should be the date on which it becomes effective in all cases. Fairness is what I am speaking about, fairness to Ontario landlords -- key partners in the housing stock of this province.

An employer told the committee: "In planning our business policies, we have always relied on stated government policies and legislation. I feel that retroactive legislation and governing by policy statements is not fair ball." This was stated to us by an employer who certainly is not finding that he can keep those that he had on his payroll in place with Bill 4 hanging over his head.

He went on to say: "Business cannot govern or plan their affairs without predictability and consistent governing. In other words, we require forewarning and some notice of major policy shifts that are going to impact on our ability to do business. Surprise retroactive announcements do not give us ample time to restructure our affairs so that we can turn and try to remain economically viable."

What we are saying about Bill 4 is, "No consultation and retroactivity." This is a bad message going to employers who could be the strong support to part of the recession problem that we have in this province. Business cannot turn around overnight. Contracts were cancelled. They were actually presented to us as rejected or no longer viable, and that certainly again puts me into a worrisome frame of mind.

As another side of that same coin, landlords have begun and, as I have just stated, are continuing to cancel contracts. I spoke to a plumber and an electrician on Monday of this week, both of whom told me that they have cut their staff by 80%; one from 17 to two, and the other one from 10 to one. That is a real loss of jobs, and they both pointed to what is happening in the rental community of Ottawa-Carleton. This is seriously affecting contractors and those in the building trades. Some of these people are small business people. Both of the gentlemen I had spoken to on Monday can only be considered small business people coming to me wondering how they are going to keep their wives and families fed and housed the way they had expected to be after many years of hard work.

The vice-president of Wind-O-Mart Ltd of Downsview employed a full- and part-time staff of 80, a case in point in this city. This gentleman believes that he is going to have to close his company as a direct result of the proposed legislation. The domino effect on his suppliers will result in loss of jobs. He came to our committee and told us this in person. He stated, indeed during the very week, the very first week last November when this announcement was made by the minister, that more than 50% of his work in progress, representing $2 million, was cancelled and many contracts that were about to begin were put on hold, representing a potential loss of $5 million.

1710

John Makuch, president of RAM Restoration, also voiced his concern to the committee. RAM Restoration is now entering the end of its fourth successful year. At one point, they had 35 people in their employ. On 13 September 1990, before the government even officially announced its plan in this area, the first cancelled contract came. Since then their workforce has consistently declined. They are now seven where once they were 35. Mr Makuch voiced his concerns most articulately when he said:

"There must be another way to protect tenants of this province, without sacrificing hundreds of businesses and thousands of jobs. Do they not understand that the safety of tenants is at stake? I know. I have seen structures in this city of Toronto that will not last two more years."

The ripple effect of this loss of jobs can only have a further negative effect on the economy of Toronto, Ottawa-Carleton, eastern Ontario, Windsor, another negative message sent right across this province in the winter and spring of 1990-91.

The committee also heard from employees whose livelihood has been placed in jeopardy by this bill. In a submission by restoration steeplejacks represented by the Ontario Plasterers and Cement Masons' International Association, Local 172, the committee was told that the restoration projects create work for the members of Local 172. Now many of these men are unemployed.

These men said to us: "Our brothers and sisters" -- the members of Local 172 -- "have said, 'I would rather be out there working and pay an increase than sitting at home wondering where my next rent is going to come from.'" These are messages from real people in real situations who are affected by Bill 4.

They went on to tell us that: "Until recently, we were an expanding industry that had excellent growth potential even in these recessionary times, our market being the restoration of buildings that were built more than 10 years ago."

The real danger is not that companies cannot survive operating in this reduced capacity, for they can, with some difficulty; the real danger is that the companies are losing their highly skilled and highly valued tradesmen to other areas of this country. The companies have spent a great deal of time and money training these tradesmen to do this very specialized form of work. Not to make a distinction in any way in this bill between renovation and justified restoration has placed the structural integrity of buildings at risk, and thus the safety of tenants and the general public at risk, we were told.

Those are my remarks for this afternoon. As I said earlier, I am most depressed -- the only word I can think of -- that we are starting what could be a very useful set of consultation between tenants and landlords in this province in an environment of distrust, in an environment of pessimism and in an environment that is less than positive or focused in direction.

Bill 4 has affected all levels of our province, whether that be the investors, whether that be the employers, whether that be the employees, whether that be the landlords and, as I have said, tenants. Tenants in particular may not receive from this bill what they expect, and some of them, I think, realize that. Some of them realize that the stock of housing is already beginning to decrease, and renovations, and certainly things that depend even on safety in some cases, are going to be put off and in some ways not ever achieved.

I regret that I have had to make these remarks. I regret that we could not get the retroactivity of this bill off the table. I really do feel that this is the crux of the matter of Bill 4 and the negative, negative impressions and atmosphere that it has spread in its wake.

Mr Carr: I just want to say a couple of things on this particular amendment. Having spent some time speaking to various groups on this issue, I want to bring forward some of the thoughts and some of the concerns that have been shared by some of the people to whom I have been speaking.

I got a letter from one of my constituents who actually also happens to work in another area, so the letter was addressed to the Solicitor General. It was very interesting to read it and to hear some of the tragic situations that are out there as a result of the retroactive provisions of this bill. It is from Joseph Zicari. He states:

"Here is the main problem that I am having with this proposed legislation. Having conformed to the provincial laws and rules that were in effect at the time, we significantly renovated two apartment buildings, ie, new roof, floors, plumbing, etc. These badly needed repairs, completed by early 1990, were financed with a bank loan, given to us on the basis of the increased rent.

"When the honourable minister, David Cooke, announced a moratorium on rent increases, this left our family devastated. We feel it is unfair that the new government should backdate the new rules to 1 October 1990. Rent increase applications can only be submitted after repairs are completed, and then 90 days' notification is required. As a result of this proposal, landlords who borrowed to make repairs that were completed months ago will no longer be getting increases allowed to them under the rules in effect. How can anyone plan for the future if the government can backdate legislation? To be fair, this legislation should have a grandfather clause so that landlords in our situation will not be financially ruined even though they followed the rules.

"My father, who owns this building" -- and I had an opportunity to meet his father actually -- "turned 60 years of age.... He mortgaged his home to complete these repairs and was to retire in 1991. He now cannot afford to retire as this building does not generate enough income to pay the bills and retire the loan. Is this fair?

"When Mr Rae won the election, he promised to be a Premier who would look after the interests of all the people of Ontario and not just the traditional NDP supporters. If he and the party are so sincere, they will make the changes to this legislation quickly, so that the small landlords such as ourselves are not ruined."

I got another letter from another constituent in my riding. This is from a Mrs Rockcliffe. She states:

"I bought a building a year and a half ago with the intentions that when something needed to be replaced in the building I could do the replacement and apply through the rent review system and over a period of time I could recapture my costs back. Now I have a building that needs a lot of replacements and away below the market in rental income.

"During the bad wind and rainstorm the other night, water was leaking in the halls and apartments on the top floor. This building needs a new roof. It's 25 years old -- where is the money going to come from? I am operating at a loss presently.

"The building is partly copper and galvanized plumbing. Therefore the tenants have very little water pressure to bathe or shower in. Pipes need to be replaced -- where is the money going to come from?

"The tenants are complaining that the air is coming in all around their windows making their apartments very draughty -- all windows need to be replaced or storm windows installed again -- again where is the money to do this?

"The heating system is no longer efficient and gas costs for the building are way too high due to this. The maintenance is also high just to keep them going -- the system needs to be replaced. I hope it gets through the winter. I do not have the money to replace it.

"The underground is leaking all over the place and must be restored. Where will this money come from? Please ask the NDP how I am going to keep the tenants dry, warm and with water; 5.4% does not even cover operating increases.

"When I bought this building the previous owner was granted a 5% phase-in for the years 1988, 1989, 1990 and 1991. This was calculated as part of the purchase price. Now the NDP are taking away that money that was granted to the building in 1988. My mortgages and bank loans were all based on that order."

1720

She goes on to explain a little bit about the actual financing costs, which get a little bit technical.

"We thought with the phased-in order we bought and doing the replacements through the rent review system this could prove to be another good building. If the NDP are not stopped now, this could become a financial disaster and a slum building.

"The NDP have also told our town bylaw enforcement department that minimum standards are being brought in and must be enforced. Owners will not and cannot do this work without a proper recaptured cost system.

"Mr Rae stated the other day, 'Why was this work not being done as the buildings aged?' I can assure Mr Rae it would have been done if we did not have a rent controlled business for the last 15 years. Owners patched due to the controls and the patches are no longer holding."

I also had an opportunity to go out to the meeting with some of the landlords and tenants held in the Mississauga area that was chaired by the member for Wentworth North that night. We heard some very moving testimony from some of the people.

A Robert Low talked about some of the increases in public housing going up in excess of 10%. I think his comment was very interesting. He said, "If this government is going to look at this situation through rose-coloured glasses, why don't they put the glasses on when they look at the public housing increases as well?"

Then there was another chap, Joseph Cohen, who said that he will lose the building because of Bill 4 and he feels like he is being "stabbed in the back."

Mr and Mrs James Brightfoot were there. They said as a result of this they have had to let their superintendent go. As a matter of fact, that night he said he had to go and unplug the toilet himself because of the fact that there was no one there to do the repairs. He is operating at a loss, and he said, "Why has this government declared war against landlords?" He said he will be in the position of losing everything.

Jack Holyoke, who has been a landlord since 1973, said the same thing. He said that there are some bad landlords out there but he did not classify himself one of them, and why did he have to get hurt as a result of that.

Stanley and Carl Faye were there, and I cannot remember whether it was Carl or Stanley who was speaking, but they were saying that they are already $62,000 in a deficit position and have an overdraft with the bank. Their question was, when the bills come in for needed repairs, what will they do? Are they going to send it to the minister?

Evelyn Parker, who was there, stated that Bill 4 was like a Scud missile attack on her. She asked why big corporations like Bell Canada can have increased profits that are regulated so that they actually are regulated to make a profit, and yet small landlords like herself are unable to survive. She is doing all the work and all the repairs herself -- she cannot afford to have anybody do it -- and actually has been even before Bill 4. She was extremely upset with the comments by the minister about being allergic to landlords. She expressed that concern and felt that was very unfair.

Fred Dobin was also there, and actually had some rather humorous comments, as I remember, and said it in a very great way. He said, "Why is this government going to attempt to do something even if it is stupid?" He said that he has been in contact with some of the West German investors and they are looking at us and saying they are extremely upset. Lives are on the line and he is very indignant, mad and hurting.

I was moved by a lot of the testimony of some of the people, and they certainly were not large landlords with big corporations. These were small individuals.

There was also a chap who wrote me, Kenneth Mate, and he said, "I am writing as a small landlord and a steelworker." He may be friends with the member for Wentworth East. He may know him, because I know they worked in the same industry. He was against the government's proposed changes in the rent review system, Bill 4, and he actually demanded to speak about that and said, "I would appreciate your help regarding this matter."

Then I also had some other comments from some other landlords talking about the phase-in provisions, saying that she is the one who is hurting: "I have a number of tenants that give me post-dated cheques in November to cover their monthly increases until they go south in the summer," and she is afraid of losing all her hard-earned savings.

I was looking at some of the reports that are out there that have come in from some of the objective experts in this field. As members can tell, a lot of information is out there, and I will not read through it all, but the file is becoming very thick regarding the problems that many people are experiencing out there. I suspect it will get a little bit larger as we continue on.

I was very curious about some of the comments that have occurred from some other parts of the world regarding some of these provisions. There is the one chap, the professor of economics from Sweden, who said: "Mr Rae must be reading books that are 20 years old. Ontario alone in the world is moving towards a system which simply has not worked in other areas."

This Swedish economist professor goes on to say: "Decades of Communist government has led to desperate shortages of apartments throughout eastern Europe. Major non-communist cities, like Paris and Vienna, have also been suffering under rent controls. Apartments are virtually unobtainable in the cores of these cities, except for the lucky few [who] inherited leases and so can rent grand residences for less than the cost of the rooms in the slums."

That is what we can expect in Ontario in the year 2000, according to the professor.

"In Sweden, just like everywhere else, a program which was introduced as a social policy has had the exact opposite effect. Sweden built almost no new houses without public funding between 1942...and the fiscal burden has been enormous. In the last decade the cost of funding all the public housing has risen to almost 3% of the gross domestic product. Last December, the Swedish Parliament passed almost unanimously a decision to abolish all government interest subsidies, beginning in 1992."

A couple more go on during this article saying more than half of these units are owned by small landlords. These are the people I have had the opportunity to meet in some of the sessions that were out there, and it was very moving testimony.

During that period of time we also met with a lot of the tenants. We were not allowed to ask any questions and speak with them, but afterwards there was some coffee provided and we got a chance to sit down with them. They said: "You know, we agree with a lot of the things that are out there. We just want to be fair in our relationships." They related how some of the small landlords they are involved with were doing a good job and there was actually a tremendous amount of co-operation out there.

In fact, they were even saying how, when other tenants destroy some of the property, they get involved in trying to stop it. They explained that one of the places actually put a wooden fence up around the garbage to try to separate it so that people would not have to see the garbage sitting out, and I guess some of the kids came around and destroyed it. They said, "As tenants, we try to prevent things like that from happening, and the reason we do that is we realize we have a very good landlord."

So there were some very, very good comments, and I know the member for Wentworth North, who was taking some of the notes, was moved by it as well.

I guess, as we sit back, the rhetoric that I was hearing after the election that came out from the business community and everyone was to the effect that: "Bob Rae's a bright guy, he's intelligent. We all know he's a Rhodes scholar. He wouldn't do anything to hurt business." But I can tell members, as a result of this, the chamber of commerce in my area of Oakville said: "If he'll do this to landlords, what will happen next? What group, as a result of these retroactive provisions, may be targeted?"

Even though they make great speeches and go to New York and try to keep the business community happy with some of the things that were done, actions speak louder than words. They say things like, "Yes, we are going to try and be fair to everyone," yet they act in a manner that shows that they are not. It really shows some of their true colours.

So some of the people, and probably some of the ones from the business community who voted for the members opposite, all of a sudden are taking a look at it and saying: "Maybe they aren't going to be as fair as we had hoped for originally." I hope that is not the case and I hope there is some balance there in order to try to help some of these folks who are being severely hurt.

1730

I did not want to go too long with going through some of these letters because I think the point is made very clearly in the comments from some of these people and in actually going out and meeting with Mr Zicari and his father and seeing the desperation in there.

I am hoping that something can be done as a result of some of these provisions with the retroactive amendments that are being put forward. If we could just get rid of the politics -- who is going to take credit for it, whether it was the Liberals or the Conservatives who pushed hard enough for it or whether it was even the cabinet ministers who want to take credit for it -- if we could just work to make sure that some of these individuals I have had the pleasure of meeting, although it is an unfortunate pleasure under the circumstances, will in fact be helped and we will not leave them hanging. Quite frankly, to some of the people like Joseph and Mrs Rockliffe who are so desperate, there is not too much you can say. We tell them that we are going to bring it up but that the government seems adamant on these provisions. I know they are tremendously concerned, but unfortunately as we sit here we do not see too much movement.

I do not suspect my words of wisdom here today are going to change the other side on it. I have not seen any lightbulbs go off there or seen anybody stand up and say that things are going to change, and I suspect they probably will not in a lot of areas, although I think the member for Guelph over there might be changing -- no, I guess not.

I say this because being part of the committee process and sitting on some of the other committees has been a good opportunity to get some good give and take and to understand where other people are coming from. I think as a result of some of the work we did on there -- and we did not have the rent control animosity that I think happened on this committee, maybe I was fortunate to start off on another committee -- there is attempting to be some co-operation and some give and take so that the people will attempt to realize where we are coming from when we stand up. Unfortunately, as I have noticed, when you get into heated exchanges, nobody benefits in these circumstances.

I just wanted to get the concerns of some of the residents of my fine riding on the record for the minister to review. During that evening I also gave to the member for Wentworth North some of the comments that people had written down, because I am sure he is getting a lot. Even though that particular evening was not particularly to deal with Bill 4, unfortunately that is what it became.

I hope the members will reflect on some of those comments that are out there and take a hard look and help some of these people who are genuinely in dire straits right now. Those are my comments that I would like to get on the record for this House to contemplate, and I want to thank all the members for taking the time to listen to me this afternoon.

Ms Harrington: I thank the member for Oakville South for his comments. He was explaining how he has been moved by landlords' testimony and letters, etc. I certainly would like to let him know that I have witnessed a lot of landlords and a lot of tenants over the last eight weeks and I do have a stack of testimony at least 18 inches high. Much of it, I would let the member know, is extremely moving. I would like to ask the member if he was also moved by the testimony of the tenants which he undoubtedly heard at this meeting in Mississauga.

I would like to think back on the consultation that we held a couple of weeks ago in North York. At that time a Conservative member's legislative assistant was sitting in on the meeting, and halfway through, after the tenants had finished speaking, he said to me with his eyes wide open, "I really learned a lot." So I think it is very helpful that people listen to what is happening out there. The reality is that the system that we had in place was not working and that there are many, many tenants who do need protection. Some 30% of the tenants in this province pay over 30% of their income for their residence, for their home.

The member for Eglinton was discussing the issue of retroactivity, and I would like to let her know that this was a very difficult date. It is very difficult to set a fair system. The way it is now 110,000 applications for units for increases in rent beyond the guideline are in fact going through. What we are indeed doing is 110,000 are being caught, but 130,000 units are still getting rent increases that are being passed through to the tenants by picking this date of 1 October. I submit to members that that is not protection for the tenants of this province. That is not a fair system and that is why the system has to be changed.

The system that we had was being used, it was being abused, and the buildings were being milked. I happened to copy down a quote from one of our hearings. In fact, it was almost two months ago. This was from a resident of Toronto, a tenant, who said, "I feel as though the city where I have lived all my life is being raped by speculators and developers aided and abetted by politicians who have totally lost touch with what life is really like for the majority of ordinary people." She said that very directly and from the heart. I would really ask that the House think about these people who are here in this city and across this province. They are ordinary people, and their voice has not been heard.

I would like to point out that the system that has been in place since 1986 is a very complex system, that some large landlords have learned how to use this system. They of course can hire experts. They can use the system to their advantage. There are many others; they are small landlords or they are tenants who do not know how to use this system.

Last night in Kitchener we spoke to tenants and landlords. Some of the tenants who had been in their buildings for 17 or 22 years were saying how in order to appeal a rent increase, even just to use the forms, to go through all that work was very difficult for some tenants who did not understand the process. Even when they went through the process, usually it was denied. Our system was very frustrating for them. I say to the honourable member for Eglinton that there was not a fair system and there was no trust in this old system.

Now let's turn to the needs of business, which has been mentioned in the last hour. Business needs predictability, yes. That is why we were out there consulting, travelling this province talking to people. We are trying to be realistic. We are trying to find what is really going on. Last night I had landlords in Kitchener who thanked me for coming, who believed that they were part of the process, and they are indeed, as well as the tenants of this province. They need predictability.

We discussed what the flexible guidelines should be based on. We discussed extraordinary operating costs, which we know there are in this province. Municipal taxes go up very drastically in some places; hydro and heating and other necessities go up drastically in other parts of this province. We discussed the reality of the capital expenditures that are needed in this province over the next few years, over the next decade, to make sure that our buildings are maintained the way that everyone wants them to be. So we are dealing with reality. We are talking with these landlords. We are trying to find a system that works. We are trying to find real protection for tenants.

1740

We also discussed with these people the need for maintenance in the buildings, the lack of teeth in the legislation and the complex system they have now where municipal bylaws are involved, where there is a provincial body as well which is involved, and how it takes 18 months at some points to try to get these things resolved.

I would like to end by saying that yes, we definitely need new legislation, that we need this consultation process, and that this is why we are trying to move as quickly as possible, because we know the reality of business in this province. We are trying to appreciate it. At the same time, we are here to protect the tenants of this province, and to go back to people like this who maybe have been ignored in the past, the ordinary people of this province who say, "I feel as though the city where I live has been raped by speculators and developers." It is now time for those people, as well as the rest of society, to be heard.

Mr Mahoney: I think that much of the point of the concern has been missed by the parliamentary assistant and by the minister. I heard many of the items read into the record with regard to some of the companies that submitted their concerns and I think that is quite legitimate, and that is the position that our colleagues in the Conservative Party have taken from day one.

I just heard the parliamentary assistant make reference to ordinary people. I think that may be a quote; it is close, anyway. That was the intent -- the ordinary people of this province. What I found out --

Mr Perruzza: Here we go.

Mr Mahoney: Excuse me, is there an echo in here?

The Second Deputy Chair: Please address the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Sorry, Mr Chairman, I am trying to, but I am being distracted by some individual up in the gallery up there, wherever he is.

I would like to address my comments to the parliamentary assistant, because the minister does not really listen or care about these, but the parliamentary assistant sat, along with myself and others, in Sudbury, in London, in Hamilton. Once we got out of the city of Toronto, we listened to people coming before our committee who were talking to us about retroactivity and about what it was doing. I heard and saw a lot of sympathy. I saw sympathy in the eyes of the parliamentary assistant, not necessarily all of her colleagues on that committee. I heard her say things to the deputations that came before us like, "We hear you and we thank you for coming and we appreciate your input and this government will be sensitive to your concerns, but we're going to pass this retroactive legislation anyway."

Amazing logic, because these were people, not the real estate companies I heard used as examples, albeit legitimate examples.

I remember the lady from New Liskeard. The critic on Housing from our party will remember the lady from New Liskeard who had, what, half a dozen small apartments, who had owned them all her life. It was part of her retirement fund. I believe she was a widow and she had her daughter in attendance with her at the hearings.

Mr Perruzza: Let's go.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: The folks on the back benches of the NDP can make light of this, particularly those who did not sit through those hearings. We were talking to people and I believe what they were telling me was true. They were telling us that indeed they were going to go bankrupt. The parliamentary assistant would remember that. They were saying, "You're going to bankrupt us with this."

My concern is that there may be a legitimate problem with some of the tenants in the Parkdale community and others who have landlords that have left huge holes in the walls and cockroaches in the buildings. We heard those deputations here at Queen's Park, and no one -- not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, not the New Democratic members -- supported that kind of treatment of those tenants. No one agreed that that should take place.

We agree that there should be tough legislation to address those particular issues. What I have such difficulty understanding is how the government takes a shotgun and just blasts it across the province, ignores the pleas.

I remember there was another young man in Sudbury who came to us and said that he had taken over a small building from his grandfather and that, with his own skills and his own hammer and nails, on his own, seriously working at this. We are talking about real people. Do not talk to me about real people in the province of Ontario and then pass legislation that simply puts them into bankruptcy. You are not allowed to use words like "hypocrisy" in this House, so I will not do that. But it is awfully passing strange to me that they would stand up in great defence of the real people, the little people, and then when we go to the hearings those people come before them, begging, pleading to the government members of the committee -- the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale knows all about this -- "Please listen to us and give us some amendments so that you don't bankrupt us."

He is still a young man, he has his whole life ahead of him, and he is facing the fact that he has had to do this work. As I recall, he had a vacant apartment. He knew all his tenants on a first-name basis; they knew him. The fellow in Sudbury, they knew him.

Hon Mr Philip: Who is that?

Mr Mahoney: We are talking about a small landlord. We are not talking about a numbered company. We are not talking about speculators. We are talking about a young guy who took a building from his grandfather and built it into affordable, decent, clean housing for some tenants in Sudbury.

Then we were in London and we heard a young fellow again come before us who bought -- my numbers, I think, are accurate. I could look it up; it is in Hansard. He said he bought a building with four units in it and he moved into one and he rented out the other. He and his wife lived in one and he as well worked with his own sweat -- sweat equity, I like to call it. He improved the living conditions for all of those tenants. Then, after they helped, over a couple of years -- I think it was five, six or seven years -- they paid down the mortgage. They saved their pennies. The husband and wife worked very hard, dedicated, in London. They bought another one, another four units. He stood before this committee and pleaded with the parliamentary assistant and with the members of the government side to please not force him into bankruptcy. I know the parliamentary assistant was affected by that.

Mrs Cunningham: Are you going to let Elizabeth up?

Mr Mahoney: I am going to let her have it. Would the member relax? I was told she wants five to ten minutes. The member is taking away my time. I will let her have it.

Mrs Cunningham: We will listen now.

Mr Mahoney: If the member does not let me make my point, maybe I will not let her have it.

These poor young people were pleading with the parliamentary assistant and the members. If the minister is callous, I can understand that. I guess he has his marching orders from the corner office of this pink palace. He is going to do whatever he is told. But those guys had to actually sit there and listen to those people beg and plead not to put them into bankruptcy.

I really thought, when I heard all the wonderful words from the committee members, that just maybe there would be some understanding of those little people, but instead they have tried to portray this as a battle against giant ripoff artists or landlords. It is just absolute nonsense. I have said it before: We do not live in the province of Toronto; we live in the province of Ontario. When they get outside of this problem, which they should deal with in a tough and firm way, when they get into the smaller communities where there are vacancies in these places, where there are people working their fingers to the bone to try to make a living, where it is their lives that they are affecting, they do not seem to care.

In the interests of allowing my colleague from the Conservative Party to have, I was told, five to ten minutes -- this will leave her about eight -- I will conclude my remarks and look forward to the debate continuing on.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to thank the member for Mississauga West for giving me this opportunity to address this bill. I have had the opportunity the last few months to receive numerous phone calls and receive many, many visits to my office from many, many ordinary people. I have not heard from the large landlords, I have heard from the small landlords, and I would like to share with members today one of the letters that I have received from one of those small landlords. It is from a man, Peter Steffens, and he says:

1750

"Presently my wife, my parents and I are trapped between the struggle of two powerful lobby groups.... I am a mechanic.... My wife and I both work full-time while enrolled in evening courses at university, hoping to advance ourselves. We rent the house we reside in and...contribute to an RRSP plan for an eventual down payment on a home.

"During the winter of 1989-90, I suggested to my parents that we invest in real estate instead of RRSPs. We began an exhaustive search for a suitable income property and after pooling our funds, purchased a small 11-unit apartment on 30 April 1990.

"Prior to the purchase, I had consulted extensively with the rent review office in Kitchener to ensure that all regulations were followed, and thus convinced my parents that this would be a worthwhile long-term investment. The apartment at that time was operating at a significant loss, but we were assured that by following the proper legislation, the rents would be increased slowly over a five-year period to a break-even point. We were prepared to contribute from our own finances for the short term.

"Taking pride in our first property, we worked on improving tenant relations, on improving the building's appearance and on its general upkeep.

"The date for the annual rent increase for this building was 1 August 1990. However, upon the advice of the rent review office manager...we delayed any rent increases for three months to 1 November 1990. This recommended delay was to provide sufficient time to substantiate our sizeable financial loss. Our accumulated receipts and 12 months of receipts from the previous owner were submitted with the building review application.

"We do not oppose a two-year moratorium on rent increases for buildings purchased after 1 October 1990, but the extension of this moratorium to our application submitted on 2 August 1990 would cripple us financially.

"The current annual loss of $35,000 far exceeds the gross annual salaries of either my wife or myself. Presently, more than my complete take-home pay is required to keep this apartment complex operating.

"Several realities, such as my pay subsidizing the rents, driving a diesel Volkswagen to save money while some tenants drive new RX-7s or Camaros and our work going unrewarded...." However, they were not discouraged. They believed and "were assured the apartment complex would break even in five years. Now the proposed cancellation of our building review application and any approved rent increases for the five-year phase-in period has eliminated all incentive for us to continue. Financially, we cannot wait....

"Our options are limited and very bleak:

"1. Sell the property now and lose all of our equity.... Our down payment for a home and the invested retirement funds from our parents would be wiped out. The property may be closed up by new owners until rental rates cover expenses.

"2. Because the sale may not even cover all liabilities, the possibility exists of defaulting on the creditors and bills, in essence, walking away from the property, which is similar to the crisis in Alberta in the early 1980s. Furthermore, if either my wife or I lose our job, there will be no funds available to meet the financial obligations.

"3. Hold on to the hope that new legislation would allow existing applications to be reviewed, and approved increases under the existing legislation to be implemented.

"From early 1990, we have abided by the existing legislation, but now we are being penalized severely because the proposed legislation goes back in time. I urge you, Mr Cooke, to address this injustice.

"Small investors and property owners, I believe, are beneficial for tenants and for Ontario. However, if this serious problem affecting not only us as owners but all of our tenants cannot be rectified, I know that our investment in Ontario and our support for the NDP government could not continue.

"I cling to the belief that individuals following existing laws" -- and I guess that is the key. These are people who followed the existing laws and they are now being punished. He hopes "that restitution will prevail."

These are the types of individuals who have been knocking on my constituency door. These are the individuals who have been calling me. It is the small land owner who has put his earnings, all the money he has, into an apartment building. Because of the retroactive nature of this legislation, they are now being penalized and they are facing bankruptcy. I hope this government will reconsider.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I feel it is relevant that today I correct what the parliamentary assistant has just brought to this House. That there is all kinds of consultation going on on this but it is not on the bill we are talking about, Bill 4. It is on the green paper that is circulating, and that is my objection. There was no consultation, just retroactive legislation without consultation. I want that understood.

Mr Callahan: In the few seconds left I thought it should be made perfectly clear that the New Democratic Party is not the party that is concerned about people in rental accommodations. This whole thing is put up as a political ploy. If they do not think it hurts any member of the Legislature to hear people who are having difficulty in meeting their rents -- that does not just deal with housing, it deals with a whole host of problems. Will the government get on with them? People out there are sleeping on the streets. People are starving to death. There are young people who cannot find a place to live. I see the Minister of Housing thinks that is a light topic.

It is very interesting that you think it is so funny that there are people sleeping on the streets. Why don't you get on with your job and do what you were elected to do?

The Second Deputy Chair: Address your remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Cooke: Don't be an ass. I didn't laugh at anything.

Mr Callahan: Oh, I am being an ass, am I?

Hon Mr Cooke: I didn't laugh at anything. Don't say that I laughed at homeless people, because it is just not true.

The Second Deputy Chair: Order. I know it is Thursday evening and members want to get home, but this is not the way to do it. Please address your remarks through the Chair, and by the way, we are getting very short of time.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I have no problem with the member wanting to attribute almost anything but I really take offence at the member saying that I was laughing and giggling at the homeless problem. That is improper.

The Second Deputy Chair: Thank you. Tempers are short and I appreciate it is late in the day.

Mr Callahan: The minister has attempted to clear Hansard of the fact that he was laughing at the time that I was talking about the homeless. If I have misinterpreted that, I apologize, but why is he laughing at a time when I am talking about the homeless? I would move adjournment of the debate.

On motion by Miss Martel, the committee of the whole reported progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Miss Martel: I would like to provide the House with the information for the business next week.

On Monday 8 April, we will have committee of the whole on Bill 4, An Act to amend the Residential Rent Regulation Act.

On Tuesday 9 April, we will have second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act, second reading of Bill 28, An Act respecting Class Proceedings, and second reading of Bill 29, An Act to amend the Law Society Act to provide for Funding to Parties to Class Proceedings.

On Wednesday 10 April, we will continue with Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act, and we will have second reading of Bill 36, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Assessment.

Finally, on Thursday 4 April, we have private members' public business standing in the name of Mr Sterling and Mr Wiseman, and we will then have opposition day standing in the name of Mr Elston.

The House adjourned at 1801.