The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES / SERVICES EN FRANÇAIS

Mr Grandmaître: The Minister of Community and Social Services spoke on Friday before a meeting of the Ottawa-Carleton social planning council.

Ottawa-Carleton is, as members are aware, a designated community under Bill 8, the French Language Services Act. This act requires the delivery of provincial services in French and in English in communities where there is a significant French-speaking population. This act promotes a very simple principle, the principle that French-speaking Ontarians should have access to the same provincial government services that English-speaking Ontarians enjoy.

Therefore, I was alarmed when the Minister of Community and Social Services appeared in Ottawa without French copies of the report of the advisory committee on social services.

Municipalities want to work with the government. They want to be part of the decision-making. But this is impossible when the government refuses to operate by the parameters set out by the French Language Services Act.

Les municipalités de l'Ontario veulent travailler avec le gouvernement. Elles veulent être consultées lors des décisions prises par le gouvernement de l'Ontario mais cela semble impossible lorsque le gouvernement ne fonctionne pas selon les directives de la Loi 8. Les Franco-Ontariens se sentent de plus en plus isolés depuis les coupures faites à la Société Radio-Canada et attendent toujours des nouvelles du ministre des Collèges et Universités par rapport à l'établissement d'une université francophone en Ontario.

I expect an apology from the Minister of Community and Social Services for failing to live up to the requirements of the French Language Services Act.

SCHOOL TRUSTEES

Mr Tilson: For many years now the town of Caledon has been represented on the Peel Board of Education by two trustees. The board has used a discretionary power under the Education Act to appoint the second trustee in recognition of Caledon's large geographic area and the obvious fact that only one trustee from Caledon would be hard-pressed to sit on all board committees. The decision to have a second trustee for a large area of low population must be made by 31 March of each election year and requires a three quarters vote of all members of the board. When the vote was taken on this matter last week, Caledon failed by just one vote to maintain its second trustee.

Something is clearly wrong with the Education Act when a minority of trustees from areas less than half the size of Caledon can gang up to arbitrarily take away 50% of its representation for little or no apparent reason and with no right of appeal.

My Caledon constituents have been in the forefront of criticizing the actions of the Peel board. They have been the active and vocal conscience of the Peel board. Now it appears that it is payback time, with the score being settled by a small minority of trustees. The situation is shameful and invites a "Bolton tea party" response.

I urge the Minister of Education to investigate and amend the act so that this tyranny of the minority cannot happen again.

OPENING OF BASEBALL SEASON

Mr Mills: When I came to Canada some 34 years ago, I was of the opinion that the most exciting sport to watch was cricket, and on my arrival I had the opportunity to watch a World Series game where Lou Burdette was pitching. I noticed that between each pitch the pitcher would check every part of his anatomy as if to see if all the parts were still attached somehow. My immediate reaction to this game was that to be interested one had to be one small step away from being committed.

Today marks the opening day of baseball here in Toronto. Like many of my colleagues in this House, I have become what is known as a baseball fanatic, and this afternoon I can honestly say that I wish I were down at the SkyDome instead of being here.

Just lately, I have noticed that several members of the opposition and of the third party have become somewhat excitable in this House, and their behaviour I have attributed to baseball starvation. I remain confident that with the start of the baseball season, the Speaker's job will get increasingly easier.

With that, I ask all members of the House to join with me in wishing the Toronto Blue Jays good luck for the coming season, and bring us the World Series here in Toronto in October.

SPECIAL EDUCATION

Mr Beer: It is imperative that the Minister of Education bring in changes to Ontario's special education legislation this spring.

As the minister knows, there has been a great deal of public consultation on this issue. The minister's own Advisory Council on Special Education has worked to ensure that all points of view have been heard. Now we need the draft legislation before this House so that we can move to strengthen the legislation that is currently on the books.

It is very important, for example, that what is called the IPRC process, the identification and placement review committee process, be made both fairer and more effective. It is this process through which children who are having particular difficulties are screened to see what the best educational program would be for them. Many parents have expressed concern that they do not have a big enough say in deciding what kind of program their child should receive. The minister knows that the proposal before her ministry would see positive changes to the existing system and allow for greater parental input.

Clearly, we want to provide an educational program for all our children that will allow each of them to reach his or her full potential. We must continue to move to greater integration of all students in the regular educational program of each school.

Since the passage of Bill 82, as it was known in the early 1980s, we have made great strides in providing a quality of educational opportunity to students with various special education needs. It is time to take the next step. I would ask the minister to bring the legislation before the Assembly so that together we can build a better future for all of our kids.

1340

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Arnott: I want to inform this assembly today of a serious problem which exists in the southern part of my riding of Wellington and which directly affects the municipalities of the townships of Puslinch, Guelph, Erin, Eramosa, Pilkington and Nichol and the villages of Erin and Elora.

The problem pertains to the severe shortage of police at the Guelph detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police, which services these municipalities and a portion of Highway 401. Although the force is doing the best job it can, the number of police personnel at this detachment is totally inadequate to meet the needs of this area, which has experienced unprecedented growth over the last five years, with its consequent increase in crime, highway traffic accidents and act violations.

This subject was raised in this assembly by my predecessor in December 1989, and in a letter dated 6 February 1990 the Solicitor General of the day advised that a review of the number of personnel at the Guelph detachment was currently under way, in conjunction with a broad-based review of the services provided by the OPP throughout the province.

In a letter dated 1 October 1990, I brought this matter to the attention of the new Solicitor General who, in a reply dated 8 November, informed me that the OPP province-wide review was in the final stages of completion and it was expected that a final report regarding staffing shortages and other related concerns of the 16 OPP district headquarters would be submitted to Management Board in April 1991.

I am sure that the southern municipalities of Wellington are not the only jurisdictions in the province anxiously awaiting the release of that report and an indication from the Solicitor General that increased levels of police personnel will be provided and maintained in those areas which are now in critical need.

NATIONAL SOIL CONSERVATION WEEK

Mr Wiseman: I would like to point out to the members of the House that this week is National Soil Conservation Week.

Conserving our soil is a vital part of our efforts to maintain and improve the whole of the environment including our air, water and ecosystems. Without a healthy, productive base of soil in our farmers' fields, Ontario would not have the fresh, abundant fruits, vegetables and grains that we so often take for granted.

Many Ontario farmers are doing their part to ensure the future of this valuable resource. Through programs like the land stewardship program, farmers learn about and participate in farming methods that are environmentally sustainable.

Being environmentally responsible need not be an expensive, onerous burden. Indeed, farmers are showing they can actually cut costs and improve long-term production by conserving their farm land.

I would like to make special mention of the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association. The association continues to work co-operatively with the government and farmers to make a real difference by motivating the farming community to improve the environmental quality and productivity of farm land.

Earlier this year the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the Honourable Elmer Buchanan, announced the land stewardship II program. This $38-million initiative combines the flagship stewardship program with the older program under the Ontario soil conservation environmental enhancement program. Land stewardship is attempting to reach farmers who are not already involved in conservation, and it is working.

I would also like to point out that it is a good time to think about acts of this kind and environmentally sustainable practices, and that we need to continue them year-round.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mrs Sullivan: It has become very clear that the Minister of the Environment has become the Minister of Garbage. As she wades through that growing mess, other important environmental issues and concerns are being consigned to the trash pile.

For the clean air program, the public consultation period was over in February, yet we have seen no announcement of the revised timetable nor of the development of the final clean air regulation.

The minister had promised early negotiations on acid rain with small emitters, and a post-1994 program for the major sources. Where is that program?

The extended public comment period on the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement issues resolution finished last October, but what conclusions has the minister drawn on these issues? What will be the public input into the drafting of the control regulations?

Where is the petroleum refining abatement regulation? That was due out for public comment last fall. In fact, what is the minister's timetable for release of all the MISA abatement regulations?

Where is the promised safe drinking water act? Where is the ground water protection program? Even on her much-touted environmental bill of rights, the promise of immediate passage has evolved into undirected consultation.

There is nothing on the order paper from the Minister of the Environment. These matters are too important for words only. We need action.

CHILD CARE

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to bring to the attention of the House and the Minister of Community and Social Services the plight of all municipalities in Ontario, but specifically the county of Grey and the city of Owen Sound.

As you well know, the poor economic climate in this province has forced many women in rural areas to supplement their income by caring for children in their homes during the day, but this assistance for farm families may soon come to an end.

Our municipalities can no longer manage the enormous social service costs mandated to them by the government. All over the province, discretionary programs are being lost or cut.

In February the minister promised aid to local governments to ease the huge welfare burdens, but to date we have seen no action, and communities like mine are wondering if indeed the minister meant what she said. The wardens and regional chairmen who came to Toronto last week tried to get an answer from the minister, but she excused herself from the meeting, leaving everyone to ask whether or not she really is concerned with day care closings and losses of programs.

I feel that it is most ironic to watch an NDP government, the friend of the people and spokesperson for the common man, oversee the complete dismantling and destruction of the social service system in the province, but if some relief is not made available almost immediately to our struggling local governments, that is indeed what will happen.

CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM

Mrs Mathyssen: I wanted to tell the House about the meeting of the Citizens' Forum on Canada's Future on Saturday 23 March in the town of Strathroy. The meeting was part of the Spicer commission's visit to Canadian communities.

The people of Middlesex filled the Strathroy meeting room to tell the commissioner how important Canada is and that people in Middlesex are committed to preserving our country for our children. They told the commissioner that they wanted a Canada with a strong central government, a Canada with a restructured government more willing to listen to Canadians, a Canada that respected and acknowledged the contribution of native people and all those who came to this land to build a country; and they wanted a Canada with Quebec. I am proud to tell this House that the people of my riding spoke hopefully, eloquently and passionately for Canada and made it clear that there is no problem that we cannot solve together.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Hon Mr Rae: I am pleased today to share with members of the Assembly four reports which have been prepared by the Premier's Council on Health Strategy. In so doing, I naturally want to pay tribute to the predecessor government and to my predecessor, David Peterson, who established this particular council. The reports contain the council's advice on the future management of our health care system and the importance of improving the health of all Ontarians.

Nurturing Health recommends a framework within which public policy can support the improvement of individual and community health by influencing the determinants of health.

Towards Health Outcomes: Goals 2 and 4 Objectives and Targets recommends specific program objectives and targets to achieve two of the council's health goals for Ontario. These are goal 2, to foster strong and supportive families and communities, and goal 4, to increase the number of years of good health for Ontarians by reducing illness, disability and premature death.

Local Decision Making for Health and Social Services in the Community offers options on establishing regional authorities for health and social service planning and management to ensure that local health and social services are responsive to consumer and community needs.

Achieving the Vision: Health Human Resources addresses the need to strengthen human resources planning and management within our health care system.

At this time, I am pleased to recognize in the gallery four members of the council who served as the chairpersons of the committees which produced these reports, and I would ask members of the House to recognize their extraordinary voluntary contribution to the province.

With us today are Roy Aitken, who chaired the health care system committee -- I am pleased to note that Mr Aitken shortly assumes responsibilities as president and chief executive officer for P T International Nickel, with headquarters in Jakarta, Indonesia, challenges to which we wish him well; Dr Reva Gerstein, who headed the healthy public policy committee -- Dr Gerstein is known to all member of the House; Mary Shamley, who is chair of the health goals committee, and Peg Folsom, head of the integration and co-ordination committee.

1350

I want to thank these members of the council and their colleagues for their efforts and dedication in the preparation of these very thoughtful and provocative documents. I would invite members of the House to read them and to study them carefully, because they are indeed thoughtful and provocative and they will have an impact on policies of this government and indeed any other government in the province.

I also want to assure members of the House of this government's commitment to consider the recommendations of the council as we create opportunities to manage our health care system more effectively and to improve the health status of Ontarians.

These reports will be building blocks for a broad public dialogue on the future management and development of our health care system. I look forward to the discussions both in this chamber and with the people of Ontario.

I also expect to begin discussions with the Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice later this spring on the contents of these reports as we establish its agenda for the next few years. The mandate of the new council will build on the broad view of health and the importance of equity and wellbeing in the health status of the population that the Council on Health Strategy has articulated so clearly in its reports.

With the mounting pressures on our health care system and the recently announced reductions in federal government cost-sharing, it is essential that we better manage our health care and social service systems and continuously improve their quality. We must also focus on other factors like child development, employment and the environment, which we know can yield benefits in improving health status and wellbeing.

Again, I want to thank personally the council members for their valuable contribution. Their recommendations have provided us with a solid basis to work together to achieve better health for all Ontarians.

RESPONSES

PREMIER'S COUNCIL ON HEALTH STRATEGY

Mr Phillips: I would like to join with the Premier in congratulating the group, which has done outstanding work. As the Premier indicated to the House, I think in many respects the Premier's Council on Health Strategy has, for the country, provided some of the most thoughtful considerations that are available in the health field right now. Certainly I thank very much the four members who are in the gallery and in fact all the members of the Premier's health council. I look forward to absorbing these four reports and their helping to provide me with a backdrop of how we are going to tackle some of the key issues in the health care field in the years ahead.

I think the Premier and all the government appreciate that this is an area that represents about 34% of the current budget, growing substantially. The demands on the traditional areas of health care, the hospitals and what not, are substantial, yet I think the Premier's health council has pointed the way that many of our solutions in health care rest outside the traditional health care solutions, more in the community, recognizing that poverty, homelessness and many other aspects play perhaps as important a role in health care as our hospitals do.

I am pleased to see that the Premier has decided to continue the health council, albeit with a slightly different mandate, but none the less one that will look at health in its broadest sense. As the Premier said, if we read these four reports, along with a lot of other reports that the Premier's health council has developed, it will provide a useful backdrop for all of us if we in this House look towards solutions in the health care area.

Certainly I would repeat what I said earlier in the House, that it would be our hope that the Premier and the Minister of Health would move quickly in some of the areas that I think are obvious and certainly some of the areas that the Premier's council has indicated need action quickly. I am talking now of things like action in the long-term care area, where the community is awaiting direction. There is no question that we need to strengthen our community-based care. As we look to taking the pressure off our traditional hospitals, it can only be done if our community-based care mechanisms and support systems are in place. That takes time and, frankly, money as well.

The drug benefit plan: A very thoughtful report has been prepared for some months now that will be helpful, I hope, to the government.

Certainly in looking at the Ontario Medical Association negotiations, as the government proceeds with those, I would hope that considerations take into account the need for community-based care and many of the recommendations that have come out of the Premier's health council. As well, we are looking for some action in terms of what I call cross-border health shopping, out-of-province billings in the health care system and certainly some action in the northern health area.

I am very pleased to have a chance on behalf of our party to say how much we appreciate the work of the Premier's health council. As I said earlier, we have four outstanding individuals, but the Premier's health council consisted of many. The people of Ontario are indebted to them for the time and energy they put into it, because as the Premier said, if you read those reports, you will find, I think, part of the solution for the challenges that rest with all of us in the health care system.

I think all of us in this House appreciate that one of the things that truly sets Canada apart from virtually any country in the world, and certainly from our neighbours to the south, is our quality health care system available to everyone. We are not going to be able to sustain that without some creative new approaches, and I believe as we look at many of those reports from the Premier's health council, that will give us part of the solution.

I guess lastly I would wish the new deputy -- I think he is officially a deputy -- Mr Pascal, who is heading up on behalf of the government the Premier's health council, all the very best of luck and certainly I can assure him that we will be doing whatever we can as a party to assist in making certain the people of Ontario have the best possible health care system.

Mrs Cunningham: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in this House this afternoon and extend our sincere congratulations to those members of our community of Ontario who have given so freely of their time for many long, long hours. As I look at them, I know some of them, and we are most appreciative of the expertise and the dedication that they brought to their jobs as members and chairpersons of committees for the former Premier's health council.

This has not been an easy task for that health council. I am sure that they have shared the hopes and the dreams and the optimism of many families across this province as we look towards new ways of dealing with health care for the very young to the elderly, and as our growing population tells us that in fact it will be an elderly population, we at times in our lives, as members of families, are very much concerned about what will happen to the older members of our community.

We have not solved the problems. They have become somewhat bigger, as the Premier's health council has so aptly put to us in the reports that it has tabled to this date, and today we look to the conclusion of its reports. We congratulate them on their hard work.

Those of us who have been interested, in the Progressive Conservative caucus in our communities in the past few years and in fact the past few months -- I can speak freely to say that in our constituency offices health care is one of the major issues that families are concerned about.

As this new government takes on its responsibilities and as it has established the Premier's Council on Health, Well-being and Social Justice under the apt, I believe, guidance of Charles Pascal, I will say that we hope it will in fact deal with the recommendations of the former Premier's council, which were meaningful, realistic, not easy to achieve, will take hard work and determination and guts to deal with.

I am now talking about reports not only of the Premier's council but of the Lowy report on the over-medication of our elderly, which we have not dealt with that the Premier was so concerned about in opposition and that we know he will carry through with.

The northern health care concerns: As we take a look at training people in health care, not just physicians and nurses but all the other support system, we have to take a look that they are well-maintained across the province, and that we have ways of encouraging health care professionals to move to our northern communities, where the services are so very much in need.

As we talk about sending patients in our own communities, our citizens, to the United States for treatment, many of us find it very difficult to justify those kinds of services south of our border when we are so proud of what we are able to do in Canada. We very seldom talk about the health care we provide for citizens from all over the world, not only citizens who come to us but physicians who travel around the world and have been trained here in this great country of ours.

1400

As we talk about long-term care and care for the elderly, we must take a look at the tremendous challenges of nursing homes, whether they be public or private. They are the institutions that are dealing with the very real people there now. It will not be an easy decision for the Premier, and he may in fact have to give up some of the principles he feels he has supported in the past, for they are the only services that are there now and we need them, and we need more of them.

The hospital funding system which the members of the Premier's Council on Health Strategy have brought to our attention in the past, the physician payment methods which you have brought to our attention, these are reports that took a lot of time. We are only hoping in this caucus that in fact we will see results and recommendations and solutions to the problems.

As we take a look at the tremendous challenge in managing our health care system and not only maintaining what we have but making it better, I want you to know, Mr Speaker, and the Premier of this province that this party is prepared to help in any way it can.

With that I will close by saying once more, thank you sincerely for being here today. We look forward to reading your report and your press conference this afternoon. We thank you very much for the hard work that you have done on behalf of so many citizens who are more vulnerable than ourselves across this great province. Our thanks.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTORAL REPRESENTATION

Mr Scott: I have a question for the Premier that has to do with the way his government proposes to take governmental decisions and the relationship his government thinks it has with elected members chosen by the people who are members of this assembly.

For many years in the bad old days when the NDP were in opposition, then under the leadership of Stephen Lewis and Michael Cassidy and Donald MacDonald and the present Premier, it was emphasized continually that the individual member of the Legislature was an important tribune elected by his community to represent the views of his community, not only speaking in the assembly but in its relationship with government. This was what the democratic process was said to be about, this was the nature of responsible government as we know it, and this would be the way that an elected Legislature had status and influence.

I shared often the then Premier's concerns about these matters, and indeed the new rules that were entered into in 1985 and 1990 were designed to enhance that role. There has been some backsliding, but that perhaps is understandable: the closed-door accountability session the NDP had; the efforts to keep the member for Oriole out of a public housing meeting convened by the Minister of Housing; the announcement that if you wanted to know how to deal with the new NDP government you should pay $800 into the party's coffers and come to its session; and, just before last Christmas, the proposal of the Minister of Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Transportation that cabinet decision-making would be shared only with NDP members of the Hamilton council.

Notwithstanding that backsliding, it has come to our attention today that across Ontario the NDP and its government have established a system of what are called "alternative provincial representatives" in ridings, exclusively, of course, that are not held by the government; indeed, I believe including my own. This comes to our attention because a person identified as Leo Courville has announced that he is the alternative provincial representative in the city of Cornwall, notwithstanding that he was rejected by almost 6,000 votes in the last election.

He was asked by the local paper what he was doing, and he said that he especially has the ear of the government, that he could help rectify the fact that an NDP member was not elected in Cornwall, that he was a strong voice at Queen's Park and that it is an NDP government and this is what it takes to deal with them.

I want to ask the Premier, because he will understand as an opposition member how destructive this is of the role of a properly elected member of the assembly even in opposition: Who established this system, what do these alternative provincial representatives do, who chooses them, what powers do they have and what influence have they had in government decision-making to date?

Hon Mr Rae: I listened with care to the member's preamble and to the member's question. I want to just say to the member that it is my view that being a member of the Legislature is a very important full-time job, and I am sure the member for St George-St David shares my views on that subject.

Furthermore, I would say to the member for St George-St David that there is no such system in place. It does not exist. It is a creation of the overactive imagination of the member for St George-St David. There is no process by which anyone is chosen for such a fictitious position. There is no such position around. I would say to the member that of course there are riding associations which continue to exist, 130 riding associations across the province, but the people who have been chosen by the members and by the public to represent the public are the people who represent the people of that part of Ontario. Obviously, the political process carries on but the system which the member for St George-St David has invented does not exist.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response to my allegation, which he obviously takes seriously, is not to worry about it because the system that I have described does not exist. We will come to that in a moment when we will have examples from the Premier's own party of persons who describe themselves as anointed as alternative provincial representatives. Then we will see whether in fact the system exists or not.

The reason I raise the matter, however, is that Mr Courville, whoever he is -- all we know about him is that he has been roundly rejected by the people of Cornwall as their representative -- says he is the alternative provincial representative. He says he has been invited to travel to Queen's Park to meet with Bob Rae -- I take it that is the same, if I am not mistaken, Bob Rae who is the Premier of the province -- on a number of occasions. He says he has written him, but will not provide, I gather, a lengthy letter dated 27 March, portions of a copy of which have been disclosed to me, which indicates that Mr Courville, the alternative provincial representative of the NDP in Cornwall, says the government should reject the views of the municipally elected officials in Cornwall on local municipal matters.

Will the Premier undertake, as the system does not, as he says, exist, to let us know what those meetings with Mr Courville were about, and furthermore to undertake, when alternative provincial representatives come to Queen's Park to lobby ministers and the Premier, that the elected member for the riding will be invited to attend those meetings or at least have the minutes of the meetings so that we can be sure the legitimate views of the community are being known?

Is this what the Premier meant when, with a good deal of piety, both before election and after, he said he was going to have open government in which elected members would be consulted? If such a system exists, and I believe I can demonstrate it does, will he be good enough to immediately acknowledge that a mistake has been made and direct that it be disbanded?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me say first of all to the member for St George-St David, to repeat again, that I do not mind him making allegations in the House because that is what I have come to expect from him, but I think I am entitled to say when to my knowledge those allegations are utterly and completely untrue, unfounded, not based in fact, and have nothing to do with reality.

The member for Cornwall will correct me, but I was in Cornwall recently with my wife. I attended a dinner which was held by the chamber of commerce. I had a number of meetings with members of the community. Mr Courville was present at one of those meetings, but there were literally dozens of people there from the chamber --

1410

Mr Scott: Met with you.

Hon Mr Rae: No. I am sorry. The member for St George-St David has asked a question and he is wrong again. I know he does not like to hear this, but I am entitled to tell him, I am telling him.

The member for Cornwall is someone whose prodigious work on behalf of his constituents is well known. His letters to me come almost weekly. I have tried to respond to them with the speed with which they have come to me. I have great respect for him as I have for other members. The member for Cornwall is a hard-working full-time member of the Legislature and he has a hard-working full-time job. I take that contribution very straight.

I would say that the member for St George-St David has been away for a while and now that he is back he says he has found something, he has dug deep and found something. I am saying that what he has found is absolute hooey.

Mr Scott: We will perhaps come to this, because perhaps the Premier would accept the word of a senior member of his own government if he will not accept my word that this program exists and that these appointments of alternative provincial representatives have been made. The issue is not whether what I say is accurate. The issue is that what Mr Courville says is that he is the alternative provincial representative in Cornwall. He is the one, not I, who says in the local paper that he has met several times with the Premier. This is the man, the defeated candidate, who the Premier now says is a liar if he has not met with the Premier and who should be put down. He is a member of the eastern policy conference. He is obviously trading on influence with the government, and in so far as the government permits him to do that, they should promptly put him down.

It is easy enough for the Premier to make fun of me and I accept that as part of life in the assembly, but I hope he will understand that what we are addressing here is an important issue about the role of elected and the role, by the way, of rejected candidates for the assembly. Will he be good enough, when he responds to Mr Courville's letter of 27 March, which he has on his desk, to tell Mr Courville that he has no authority to make the kind of assertions he has made in the local press, and what is more, that he has lied when he has said he has met several times with the Premier?

Hon Mr Rae: Just so we can be very clear and just so everyone understands, Mr Courville was a candidate for us in the last election, and as the member has pointed out, he was not successful. I have been asked whether I have seen his letter. I can say to the member I have not seen the letter yet, but I get thousands of letters in a week and obviously I will look at the letter.

I do not know whether the member is quoting from a letter or exactly what he is doing. If he is stating that Mr Courville has said that we have met on a number of occasions, I can say to him that I meet with people all the time on a basis. That is not a particular surprise. I have already indicated the circumstances under which I saw Mr Courville. The only other occasion I can think of recently where I would have seen him would have been at a convention for New Democrats at which there were roughly 2,000 delegates. I would not be surprised if I saw Mr Courville on that occasion.

But let me say to the member for St George-St David, I meet with people from all walks of life all the time. There are people who are entitled to play a role in our political party as they are entitled to play a role in the member's party, but there is no such thing as an alternative provincial representative. There is no such system which was part of the member's first question alleging that we had created some kind of a system across the province. That is completely false; completely untrue. There is no such group of people; there is no such system; there is no such effort on our part to take away from the duties and responsibilities of the hard-working full-time members of the Legislature who have a job to do here and whose views we take enormously seriously.

Mr Scott: The Premier's response to this issue, which I am certain he takes seriously, as any leader would, is that it is hooey that there is no such system. The system comes to our attention because Mr Courville has described it, but I understand that the Premier has said Mr Courville's account of his attendances on the Premier given in the local paper is false. That is not all there is to it.

On 18 February 1991, on the letterhead of the Minister of Northern Development, a letter was written by that minister's special assistant to David Court, the director of the public, and tax-funded, Algoma District Social Services board, recommending the appointment of one Wilma Sanderson to sit as a member of this publicly funded, tax-paid board.

The letter goes on, "Wilma has several professional affiliations which are as follows," and among them, in the minister's letter, describing a position which we were just moments ago told did not exist, is given that she is "the alternative provincial representative for the New Democratic Party Algoma-Manitoulin riding."

The Premier says that there is no such thing; the Minister of Northern Development says there is such a thing. Do members know the interesting connecting link? Mr Courville, in the paper in Cornwall today, says, "They work very closely as alternative political representatives with the Ministry of Northern Development."

Now what does the Premier say about this? We have from his own ministry a recognition that the job title, the description "Alternative Provincial Representative," capitalized, does exist as far as the minister and the Premier are concerned. What this is is barefaced political pressure designed to insert a non-elected official on a tax-paid board. The government can no longer say this system does not exist. I want the assurance of the Premier that it will be disbanded forthwith and that the minister will be rebuked for making that suggestion.

Hon Mr Rae: Let me try to explain to the member, and I am sure he will appreciate the explanation. In our party we have a convention, which meets every two years, at which our leader is elected and we have delegates. We also have a council which meets four times a year. That council has a delegate, a representative, and it has an alternative delegate or representative.

Mr Scott: It isn't what it says.

Hon Mr Rae: These councils have been in existence back to Donald MacDonald and Stephen Lewis and Michael Cassidy. These councils have been in existence all that time. We continue to have a party council which meets, which has delegates, representatives from various ridings, from 130 ridings and it has alternative delegates who go to that council meeting and who go to those council meetings four times a year. That, as I understand it, is the status that Miss Sanderson has with respect to the Algoma-Manitoulin provincial riding. That is the beginning and end of that particular molehill.

Mr Scott: The Premier having responded first by saying no such thing existed, then having had to respond to his minister's letter, begins to talk about delegates to a provincial council meeting. I point out to the Premier that this is not the way the minister's letter described this person. She is described --

Interjection.

1420

Mr Scott:: It is not a minister's letter. So now the policy assistant to the minister is to be discounted. Unload them as he has to, the fact is that this person is described as the alternative provincial member; Mr Courville is described the same way. But I want to point out that it is not only my concern that this unelected official has been inserted in Algoma; it is the concern of the board. Here is what the vice-chairman of the board had to say about it.

Interjections.

Mr Scott: If members are interested in open government, they will give this a moment. Here is what the vice-chairman of the Algoma board had to say of the effort of the ministry to impose this alternative provincial representative on it in a tax-paid board setting:

"'The feeling of the board was perhaps amazement after what we had heard from the Premier, that people would be judged on the basis of their merits. We felt it was done in very, very bad taste by the individual and that it should be brought to the attention of her boss.

"Currie said, 'The mention of Sanderson's NDP links struck us as being mentioned as a specific reason as to why she should be hired. Other governments have never consulted with us, as they should not. Otherwise this would become an old boys' club, which is in direct opposition to the democratic process.'

"Brown said the letter is totally inappropriate. 'I think it's very bizarre to see political interference in the work of district boards.'"

Does the Premier agree that the letter from the Ministry of Northern Development, signed by the policy assistant, is, as the vice-chairman said, totally inappropriate, indeed bizarre in the work of district boards?

Hon Mr Rae: I am happy to read a letter which was signed by David de Launey, the executive assistant, which was copied to the leader of the Conservative Party and to the leader of the Liberal Party on Friday. What I heard this morning -- obviously I have been briefed on this -- was the first that I had heard about it. It said:

"On 28 February 1991, a special assistant to the Minister of Northern Development wrote to you recommending someone for the board of the Algoma district social services. This personal directive went out on the letterhead of the office of the Minister of Northern Development. This letter should not have been sent. It is not consistent with the new process of public appointment that the government is establishing. I regret any undue pressure this recommendation may have put on you and your board members. I can assure you that it will not happen again."

I want to assure the member that a mistake was made, a mistake has been admitted by the minister's office and it will not happen again. As I say, that is the beginning and the end of it.

Mr Scott: It was the Premier who said in the Legislature, "It is to be our governing principle that we must at all times act in a manner that will not only bear the closest public scrutiny but will go further and ensure public confidence and trust in the integrity of government."

The Premier has said, as we have caught him out, that a letter has now been written apologizing. Are we to understand that as long as we catch him out he will admit a mistake; that if we do not catch him out, he will not admit a mistake? For five questions he has refused to acknowledge the problem; now he acknowledges it. It seems to me that this is an important moment in the legislative process.

I want to ask the Premier, will he and the government apologize to the representative in this House for Algoma-Manitoulin and to the people of Algoma for what the vice-chairman of the board has characterized as a bizarre and inappropriate intervention in the public affairs of this board by this alternative provincial representative? Will he apologize in fairness to that community?

Hon Mr Rae: The letter went out on Friday. The minister was in Elliot Lake on Friday. The letter was out on Friday night and she directly responded. Let me say to the member, a mistake was made with respect to this particular letter. But I also want to say that from this letter and from a letter which I have not yet seen from Mr Courville which apparently appeared in some paper, the member for St George-St David concocted an entire elaborate scheme by this government to undermine parliamentary representation in Ontario. That is what I called hooey, because it is not based on a fair attribution of facts.

If the member wants to say that this is an important parliamentary moment, that is fine, I am happy to ascribe any moment which he thinks is important a notion of importance. But for goodness' sake, let us not build the kind of elaborate and absolutely unjustified conclusion from the situation which he has put forward. It is quite unfair, it is quite inaccurate, it does not at all represent the facts, it is not in keeping with the truth, and I am sure the member would want to think about that before he does this again.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier. Last week, last Thursday I think it was, the Minister of Financial Institutions was quoted extensively in the news media, indicating that the rights of victims may not be expanded or even included under the new system. This comes approximately two weeks after the minister was sworn in to his new responsibilities, four months after he called the loss of the right to sue the most offensive part of the Liberal legislation, Bill 68. This is indeed an amazing turnaround in a very brief time indeed. The minister is not only abandoning his own views but apparently party principles and NDP policy.

My question is to the Premier, and I am asking him how he can reconcile his own commitment to and belief in the right to sue with the minister's views expressed last Thursday.

Hon Mr Rae: As I have said, I think in answer to almost every question which has come on this subject from the member for Leeds-Grenville -- and I will answer him as directly as I can -- the government is working as a government to present what in our view we find is the fairest and best plan for all the people of the province, including people who are the victims of accidents. We will continue to do that. We will continue to do it as best we can.

Beyond that, I am really not at liberty to comment in any detail, except to say that obviously there is a range of options and ways of doing that. There are ways of providing for people who are injured in accidents and people who are the innocent victims of accidents, and we will present to the Legislature the best and fairest possible plan, at which point it can be fully discussed with all members of the public.

Mr Runciman: What the Premier continues to deliver is more bafflegab and non-answers on this issue. We are certainly not getting a direct answer.

I want to read something the Premier said to the former Premier, Mr Peterson, dealing with the auto insurance issue. He said:

"If the Premier was telling the truth when he made that statement back in the election of 1987, he has an obligation now to tell us what that plan was and why he did not put it into effect. He has an obligation to be straightforward with all of us in this House and say why what he is doing now is the exact opposite of what he promised the people of this province during an election campaign.

"I am here to tell the members that this party, his party, the Liberal Party of Ontario, will be judged accordingly for having very clearly and emphatically broken faith with the people of this province."

Is the Premier telling the people of Ontario that what he required as a standard of honesty and integrity by Mr Peterson and his Liberal government will not be applied to this Premier and his socialist government? Is he going to keep the promise and restore the right to sue?

Hon Mr Rae: I am sure my fate, as does the fate of all of us, lies on a daily basis with the electorate of the province. They will make judgements with us and on us on a daily basis. We recognize that, and I certainly recognize that, but I hope the member will appreciate that I cannot answer in any significant detail. It is not because I am trying to be particularly evasive or difficult. It is for the simple reason that the cabinet has yet to make a final decision, the legislation is not yet before the House, and until such time as it is, I do not think it is fair for the member to draw any particular conclusions or for us to have a speculative debate. I think it is better that we have a debate on the substantive matter which will be before the House.

1430

Mr Runciman: I am not looking for details of the plan as it is going to come forward. I am asking the Premier if indeed he is going to be true to his commitment, the commitment of his minister when he was a backbencher, the commitment of the former minister, certainly strongly the commitment of his party during the filibuster here last year, a very strong commitment to restore the right to sue -- apparently at that time, we believed, a very genuine concern for the innocent accident victims in this province.

That is all I am asking him, and apparently now we are getting obfuscation. We are certainly not able to get a straight answer from this Premier. I do not know if he is collapsing to the pressure of the insurance industry or the no-fault troika on the front bench, as I have described them. Something is happening, and the Premier is not prepared to give us a straight yes or no whether indeed he is prepared to keep a commitment he made to the people of this province.

I want to read another quote to him and put it on the record again, again a question to Mr Peterson:

"Surely it is noteworthy that when you ask the Premier of the province whether he was telling the truth on a given day, he cannot even answer yes, let alone no. He cannot give us an answer one way or the other. It is a very simple question. When he made that statement to the people of this province, was he or was he not telling the truth to the electors of Ontario?"

I want to throw that back to the Premier. When he made the promise to restore the right to sue, was he or was he not telling the truth to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: I have been dealing with the insurance issue in this House for a long time, and the House will have yet another opportunity in a few weeks to deal with this issue. The member will have the opportunity to make an assessment of the scheme, of the proposal that is put forward by the government, and so will others. They will have an opportunity to judge it; so will the electorate. Obviously, we stand or fall by the electorate.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE SETTLEMENT

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Chairman of Management Board. Just recently they announced they have settled with the union for the province of Ontario at some 5.8% increase over last year. What would that cost the taxpayers if they include all the grossing up, the merit increases, etc?

We all know that 5.8% is the settlement amount. I do not think that was a particularly good settlement. I think it is too high, considering the economic conditions we face today as a province. The Chairman of Management Board obviously thinks the figure was a good settlement. Otherwise, she would not have signed the document.

The key question is, what is it going to cost the taxpayers from last year to this year on straight payroll for union people working for the province? The cost of living allowance is 5.8%. Including merit increases, etc, what kind of percentage increase can the taxpayers be looking forward to?

Hon Ms Lankin: I do not have the actual figure of the merit increase here. My recollection is that between steps on the grid it is something like a total cost of 0.3%, but I will check that out and I will get that answer to the member. I think that would bring the total cost in any given year to around the 6% figure if there is a 5.8% cost of living increase. However, as I said, I will verify it and I will get the answer for the member.

Mr Stockwell: We are dealing now with an over 6% increase. If we are talking 0.3% and 5.8%, we are over 6%. We have 1,600 job losses per day in this province. Local municipalities are negotiating today for settlements ranging between 4% and 5%. Management Board has now become, at 6%, the high-water mark. Everyone will be looking for that type of increase in the public sector.

As I said, there are 1,600 job losses per day. How can she justify this to the taxpayer, the beleaguered taxpayer who has been overridden by tax increase after tax increase, the jobless who are being forced out of their jobs because of plant closures, etc, those who are being laid off, with no increase, plus a tremendous number of workers out there in the province of Ontario who are doing with no increase this year because of the economic recession? How can she justify this to all those people who have lost their jobs, are getting no increase, and they can see the fat cats at Queen's Park offering a 6% increase to their workers, who are totally oblivious of the recession? What does she say to these poor people when they are looking for food to put on their table?

Hon Ms Lankin: I actually appreciate the opportunity to address this issue, because the member was referring to the article that was in the Sun on Friday, and I thought it was unfortunate that the research for the article did not provide answers to some of the questions he is putting forward in terms of the comparisons and what economic indicators should be looked at and how you justify wage bargaining in the public sector. Particularly with respect to a couple of the comments the member made, I think it is important for him to look at the history of this.

The article seemed to suggest that in fact this was a news item, that something had just happened. The decisions that were taken with respect to an appropriate area of settlement were taken back in the beginning of November. That includes looking at things like, in the public sector, where you have no right to strike, where you proceed to binding arbitration, what an arbitrator would look at, what he would likely award. That means you must look at things like economic trends and the level of wage settlements and comparison of OPS to private sector, some of the things the member just said. Unfortunately, the numbers he is putting forward are incorrect.

As I indicated, we looked at this at the beginning of November. The actual settlements in the OPS started in December -- the first four or so came in around the middle of December -- and range from 5.78% to 5.8%, and those are the operative figures.

I think at that point in time you need to look at the prediction for inflation. The Treasurer in the economic statement looked at 6.1% for Ontario. In fact, federal forecasts at that point in time were ranging from 5.9% to 6.4%. It is often accused that public sector wages can be inflationary; 5.8% comes in below that. It is not an inflationary pressure.

More important, the member needs to look at the very issue he was raising with respect to wage settlement trends. At that point in time what was out and reported were third-quarter settlement trends, and in the private sector, again at that point in time, they were running at 6.9%, and in the fourth quarter when they were finally reported out they came down to 6.1%.

Those were the figures we had to look at, but you also have to project forward. At that point the federal government was not even acknowledging that there was a recession. In projecting forward, I think it is important for you to look at what is happening right now, and these are comparable figures, but unfortunately I do not think the member has the right ones.

If you look at public sector settlements in the first two months of 1991, the figure is 6.6%. If you look in February, for all settlements in bargaining of private and public sector the figure is 6.6%. So in fact the negotiated settlements we have reached are responsible, and I think because they are such large bargaining units they will in fact help bring settlement rates down.

However, the other point the member raised with respect to what has happened to the economy, the dramatic turnaround and where we are headed will certainly be major guiding economic trends and factors that will be considered in the round of bargaining that we are preparing for now.

Mr Stockwell: That may be very well and good for the reality of the minister's seat today. I do not hear anybody in the private sector quoting me those kinds of numbers and suggesting that the public sector should be receiving 6% increases in salaries during these recessionary times.

She can tell me she set the trend in November. If she is telling me she set the trend in November for 6% increases, that is irresponsible and unacceptable. The people who have lost their jobs, the people who are getting no increase, do not consider it to be reasonable for government to expect a 6% pay hike for the union people. In fact, I am not so sure if the minister's mind has crossed the bargaining table, because she is not talking as if she is representing the taxpayer, she is still talking as if she is representing the unions she used to represent.

In the face of the reality of today -- and the reality today is that there are many job plant closures, people getting laid off, people who are not getting increases -- the local municipalities in Metro are talking about a 4% to 5% increase. She is leading those when it comes to settlements with local municipalities.

How can the Chairman of Management Board isolate herself? How can she stand here and rattle off statistics that are totally meaningless to the person who has been laid off and has no way to feed his family? How can she accept these kinds of tax hikes to the taxpayers, who cannot afford to pay them?

Six per cent is too high. If she goes to the towns and she asks her members to go back to their communities and tell them to sell a 6% increase, it would be resoundingly unacceptable. Is she prepared to defend to the people of this province a 6% increase in cost of living and merit increases for the unions of Ontario when they are not having any food to put on their table because this government has been inactive in creating jobs? There are 1,600 job losses a day. That is not putting food on the table. When can they expect to see this government tighten its belt and fight the recession, help the private sector fight the recession?

1440

Hon Ms Lankin: The member asked, "How can you isolate yourself as a government?" In fact you cannot, you cannot at all, and that is the very fact that I was trying to put forward to him. In a system of collective bargaining in which you must go to arbitration as a final dispute resolution mechanism, an arbitrator must look at things like the cost of living, the economic trends and the settlement trends. Those figures drive a certain perspective of what that settlement will be. The member is completely ignoring that.

The other thing I would say is that the member is misrepresenting the actual figures that are out there and what we had to look at; and to indicate that at the point in time in November when we started into bargaining the kind of economic downturn was completely understood, I think the member is entirely wrong. Again I will say the settlements were in December that that rate was set for the public sector and the OPS.

I do, however, seriously want to respond to the concern he raised with respect to the economy now, to the number of people who are losing their jobs, to the very real crisis we are trying to respond to through a number of measures, through the preparation of the budget. I agree with him that with respect to collective bargaining in the OPS, as we enter into preparation for the collective bargaining session for the next year, in fact all of these points will drive the negotiations and will drive that settlement figure, I think, to a considerably lower rate.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs McLeod: It would appear from Friday's press that the Premier has now rejected any possibility of assistance for municipalities that are faced with explosive increases in their welfare case loads. He has apparently said that there will be no quick payouts.

I think we all know the numbers only too well. In Metropolitan Toronto welfare cases have grown by 83%, in Dufferin welfare cases have grown by 120%, in York region they have grown by 100%, and the burden of this growth is being passed directly on to local ratepayers.

As the municipal cost for social assistance grows so rapidly, it becomes impossible for the municipalities to have any flexibility in providing the emergency assistance programs that are so badly needed, and as a result of that, the increase in use of food banks is being clearly seen.

I would like to ask the minister a question we have asked before and are going to continue to ask: Will she at least commit to paying some increased share of welfare costs, or has the Premier now had the last word on this subject?

Hon Mrs Akande: Actually, we have been for quite some time picking up considerable assistance for the municipalities. We did that when we announced our first increase that came in in January, where we picked up the total cost of the increase on the increase. We have done so in many of the measures.

We increased the number of workers who would facilitate moving from general welfare assistance to FBA so that those costs would be picked up entirely by the province, rather than any of those costs continuing with the municipalities. We have made recommendations to the municipalities and told them to suspend their home visits so they could move people on and then off the FBA much more quickly. We have made it possible for them to allow people to return to social assistance on FBA without first going back on GWA after they have had some brief period at work. I could go on. We have been giving quite a bit of support to the municipalities and we shall continue.

Mrs McLeod: I know the minister is very well aware of the number of recommendations that have been made to her from different sources that would provide for some immediate relief to municipalities and to people who are now on welfare, and I find myself wondering how we can get past the words to grasp a sense of the reality of this crisis.

I wonder if it is impossible to ignore the fact that those who are most impacted by the recession are probably children and young people. Metropolitan Toronto released a report on Friday suggesting that almost 26,000 children in the Metro Toronto area are now receiving general welfare assistance. During the standing committee on estimates, the minister herself indicated that 338,000 children were now dependent on social assistance in Ontario, and we know that 80% more children in Metropolitan Toronto are now using food banks than were using food banks last year.

Surely we would all agree that relief is absolutely necessary now. This government will not commit to spending just $5 million out of the $700-million anti-recessionary package to put opportunity planning pilot projects in place. The government will not commit to providing assistance to municipalities in meeting the increased costs of welfare. Instead of committing to enhancing the cost sharing for emergency assistance programs, the government's proposal was to provide $1 million to food banks that said they really did not want that, and now the Daily Bread Food Bank has fallen short on its food drives and is talking about rationing food.

I simply ask the minister, how can she continue to avoid dealing with this issue? What commitments is she prepared to make?

Hon Mrs Akande: I feel very, very sorry that I have to continue to repeat that we have heard the cries out there. We are responding to the needs that have been mentioned by the member. We have continued to address the problem in several ways. The recognition that so many children are in need is what has brought us to the point where we have moved very quickly to get the kind of assistance that is necessary for single parents, and that bill or that move is held up in committee by the opposition. That would bring thousands of dollars to parents who need that money.

The other focus is the $1 million that the member refers to; that was given to food banks to come up with creative ideas that they wanted to address. That money was received well by some who requested it and denied by the others who did not.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and Skills Development. Recently the government has been making some efforts through its unemployment help centres to boost the programs for skills training for the unemployed people in our province.

Last week the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour told the annual meeting of the London unemployment help centre: "All of the skills or all of the education we can provide for workers or others is virtually useless unless the economy has the capacity to provide enough jobs for them to go to." We all know who was in the audience.

The Premier spoke to the Ontario Teachers' Federation on the weekend and said: "Education and retraining are the key to better times."

Surely these remarks are very contradictory. I ask the minister to explain why the Ontario Federation of Labour is contradicting, I think, what the Premier wants in retraining for young people and unemployed workers in our province. I am giving him a chance to explain.

Hon Mr Allen: I thank the member for the question. I see no contradiction between a statement respecting the need for jobs for people who are trained to go to and the assertion that it is necessary to improve and enhance training and education for young people, and for older people indeed, to enable them to access the labour market. Those two go hand in hand. They are certainly the bipolar elements of this government's strategy with respect to the economy.

In my own capacity as Minister of Colleges and Universities, my responsibilities lie in the training and education end of that equation. The member will know that we did everything we could to maintain the level of post-secondary funding for that purpose, for the colleges and the universities of this province, that we are actively negotiating enhanced funding from the federal government for all the training initiatives in Ontario, and that we have recently provided funding for laid-off apprentice programs that would enable laid-off apprentices to continue as apprentices in their training in order to take advantage of returning good times, we would hope. We have also provided funding for technology enhancement programs for technologists and technicians and for pre-apprenticeship programs out in the workplace.

There is a whole series of initiatives we are taking to enhance the training side and to enable us to regain our prosperity through that avenue.

1450

Mrs Cunningham: I take objection to the words "virtually useless," which were used by the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour when he was talking about skills and education. I just hope the minister will have a little chat, because I do not think that is the kind of message we want across Ontario. In these times, I believe we should be saying all the positive things we can to people who are looking for opportunities to retrain, and that is the point I am making.

I would also like to bring to the attention of the minister, with regard to these help centres, that we also have community industrial training committees that have been in Ontario, I suppose, since the late 1970s. They have been the backbone of the advice that school boards, colleges, universities and the government get from the grass-roots community.

I want to read from a letter that was sent to Gordon Wilson, president of the Ontario Federation of Labour, by the southwestern region chairperson of the community industrial training committee. He said:

"Community industrial training committees were formed in 1979 as advisory committees to the government and the colleges on skills training needs in the metal cutting trades. Business, industry, labour, education and government were invited to participate in these local voluntary organizations. Only labour declined this opportunity to influence training decisions. Labour did not support local decision-making on training issues."

I was a member of these committees over a number of years in London, and we did not have the kind of support we wanted, but I must say it has begun to turn around.

This particular chairman writes:

"Suddenly, in 1990, the Ontario Federation of Labour has come forward as an active and adamant opponent of the community industrial training committees."

What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that all parties, labour, unions, business and education, are included in all training strategies and programs in this province?

Hon Mr Allen: Everything I can. Quite clearly, any new training structures in Ontario have to be representative. The problem is not that the labour movement does not see the need for local training councils; it is that with 57 of them out there at the moment, they have a very hard time providing appropriately trained personnel on training issues in order to staff all the representative positions that need to be there. It is not a question of not wanting local delivery mechanisms.

I assure the member that we are currently very actively involved and that by the end of this month must have in place a clear alternative for local delivery mechanisms in order to continue our negotiations with the federal government on the Canada-Ontario agreement on training. That will have to designate the nature and character and the representativeness and functions of the local delivery mechanisms that will have to be part of the Ontario scene in the future.

I assure all members of this House that those bodies, in order to be effective, will have to use the services of those who are energetic and involved and engaged in training locally, and at one and the same time they will have to be representative in order to be effective.

ACCESS TO LAKE SCUGOG

Mr Mills: My question this afternoon is directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. A few days back, I met with the native people who are members of the Mississauga first nation of Scugog, in my riding. We discussed a number of issues. The topmost issue facing that group of people is access to Lake Scugog. At the moment, they are landlocked. They have no access to the lake to carry out the things that naturally are theirs; that is, fishing and hunting. What is the minister doing to facilitate access to the water on provincial crown lands adjacent to the reserve for the Scugog first nation?

Hon Mr Wildman: I thank the member for Durham East for the question. I know of his interest and the visit he had with the Mississauga first nation of Scugog Island. That first nation is a member of the United Indian Councils of the Mississauga and Chippewas First Nation. The provincial government is expecting shortly to be receiving a formal proposal to initiate discussions regarding issues of land and natural resources from the united councils. I understand water access for Scugog will be one of the issues that will be addressed in that formal proposal, and we hope to initiate discussions as soon as possible. We are looking forward to receiving the proposal.

Mr Mills: That was a very fine answer and I appreciate it.

GARBAGE DISPOSAL

Mrs Sullivan: My question is to the Minister of the Environment, and I am asking it specifically of the Minister of the Environment and not the minister of the greater Toronto area. The minister will know that we on this side of the House support the concept that citizens of the province have to be aware of and involved in solutions to the waste crisis, particularly 3Rs-related solutions, and that the solutions have to be environmentally sound.

We were surprised, however, that last week the minister responsible for the GTA ruled out several potential options and solutions without the opportunity to have them subjected to the rigours of the environmental assessment process. The decision to process garbage from the GTA within the GTA is a decision based on a philosophical position and not on science or environmental integrity.

I am asking the Minister of the Environment if as Minister of the Environment she will guarantee and insist that whatever interim sites may be selected in the GTA will come not because of a political decision but will be subject to a full environmental assessment.

Hon Mrs Grier: I am sure the member is well aware that I have ruled out the interim sites for waste within the GTA that were part of the original plans of the previous government. Under that government, interim sites were to be selected for a four-year period without a full environmental assessment but through the Environmental Protection Act. The plan of this government is to get significant reductions in the amount of waste that has to be disposed of and then to find a long-term site. That is the plan with which I am proceeding.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister may not have been in agreement with the previous Minister of the Environment's plan to have interim landfill site approvals done through the Environmental Assessment Board under the Environmental Protection Act. That process did, however, assure the public of consultation and that sites would be chosen based on environmental suitability. The minister has promised nothing, no environmental assessment, no environmental protection, only the use of back-pocket emergency powers.

My question is straightforward. Will the Minister of the Environment commit to this House that any expansion of existing sites or any interim sites which may be required will be subject to the full scrutiny of the Environmental Assessment Act?

Hon Mrs Grier: I want to point out to the member once again that there are two approaches to this issue. The approach we are taking is a system-wide, long-term approach that puts waste reduction first and puts the site selection process for a disposal site under the Environmental Assessment Act.

In the implementation of that long-term plan I have recognized the possibility that we might run out of capacity within the GTA before we have the long-term site available. I do not plan for that. I hope that will not happen. It would be irresponsible of me not to acknowledge that it could happen, and for that reason I have asked a task force within my ministry to come up with all possible alternative solutions to that situation should it arise. When I am in possession of all the information that is available as to what those alternatives might be, I will share them with the member.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Abitibi-Price established its last two paper mills in Alabama and Georgia rather than in Ontario. This represents a loss of 300 skilled jobs to the province. One of the major reasons for locating in the United States was the future shortfall of available electrical energy supply in Ontario.

Recently the chairman and president of Ontario Hydro resigned. Can the minister tell us how many megawatts of power have been made available through conservation to date?

1500

Hon Mrs Carter: I would just like to point out that our policy has had no effect on the supply of energy in this province in any negative sense and certainly will not do so for many years to come. Any nuclear power stations that might have been started at the end of the demand-supply plan hearings would not have been started for several years. So I fail to see why any firm should be making decisions of that kind at this time.

Mr Jordan: My question first was how many megawatts of power had the minister made available to the province through conservation and how does she cope with the president of the major power users of Ontario coming forward and saying there is a gradual movement of business development out of Ontario? This is currently in the form of hiring out plant expansions outside of Ontario. When will the government come forward and tell us the megawatts the minister has made available through conservation and give us some direction to restore confidence in this province?

Hon Mrs Carter: It is impossible to accurately measure how many megawatts are made available though conservation at a given time. However, it does happen to be a fact, and we do not know to what extent this is due to the recession and to what extent it is due to conservation, that power use in this province dropped 2.9% last year and has dropped for the first few months of this year. There is certainly no impending power crisis. We have many standby possibilities of bringing more power on stream at short notice. If the member opposite can point to me and prove that any firm has left this province for the United States because of a fear of impending power shortage, then I would like to see that proof.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that notwithstanding standing order 94(h) the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item 12.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mahoney: I have a petition here signed by 106 people who have simply sent this in saying, "We say no to government-run auto insurance." I would like to present that. Those are, by the way, mostly from the Windsor and London area.

I then have a petition signed by 3,602 residents of Mississauga West and surrounding areas and even as far away as Ottawa. Those are 3,602 residents who have sent a petition for our office to give to this government to tell it, if the minister is listening, that they are opposed to government-run auto insurance.

NURSING HOMES

Mr Brown: I have a petition addressed to the Lieutenant Governor and the assembly and it says:

"We, the undersigned, are most concerned about what we consider to be inadequate provincial funding to Ontario's nursing homes. We urge immediate action to correct this situation." I will just sign it.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr Tilson: I have a petition against cruel product testing. This is a petition of 74 signatures:

"Whereas each year in North America thousands of animals suffer and die slow, painful deaths in laboratory tests of cosmetics and household products;

"Whereas these tests are cruel and not required by any provincial or federal law;

"Whereas safe alternative methods of testing such products do exist, methods that do not involve the use of animals but do provide reliable results;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill prohibiting the use of animals in cosmetic and product testing."

NURSING HOMES

Mr Tilson: I have a petition from the staff of the Avalon Care Centre in Orangeville. It consists of 94 signatures:

"Whereas we, the staff at Avalon Care Centre, are a very committed, caring staff who work hard at providing quality care for each and every one of our residents; and

"Whereas due to the government funding homes for the aged at a much higher rate than nursing homes there is no equality for the staffing of both facilities;

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

"We demand equality in funding and staffing between homes for the aged and nursing homes."

I have a petition from the residents and families of Avalon Care Centre which consists of 49 signatures:

"Whereas we, the residents and families at Avalon Care Centre, are very concerned about the funding inequities of nursing homes in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas it is our understanding that the government funds homes for the aged at a much higher rate than nursing homes;

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

"We demand equality in funding and staffing between homes for the aged and nursing homes in order to meet the increasing needs and maintain the quality of life of nursing homes."

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

Mr Wessenger moved first reading of Bill 68, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.

M. Wessenger propose la première lecture du projet de loi 68, Loi portant modification de la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Wessenger: This bill would amend the Workers' Compensation Act by creating a rebuttable presumption in the case of health care workers who contract a blood-borne disease and who handled or came into contact with human bodily fluids in the course of their employment that the disease was due to the nature of their employment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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 9:

The Chair: We ended the debate on Thursday. I believe we were at a motion moved by the member for Eglinton. Are there any questions or comments?

Ms Poole: Mr Callahan had had the floor just as we adjourned the debate.

Mr Callahan: At the outset I would like to say that in the three minutes that were left on the clock that particular evening, I had made a comment about the Minister of Housing. He assures me that his laughing was not as a result of my comment about the disabled, and therefore, being an honourable member of the House -- as I consider all members of the House to be honourable -- I would withdraw that statement on his assurance that that was not the case.

I do, however, wish to say that as we debate this bill and as we deal with the question of rent regulation, the major issue as I see it in this province, and I think as is seen by many people who do not have the benefit of any type of housing -- who are in fact sleeping on the streets in this city, are sleeping on the streets in towns throughout this province -- is to get on with the question of providing the housing that will accommodate them.

We talk here about the question of regulating rent. That is for people who are lucky enough to have a place to live in. While we spend time doing that, as I say, the government is not fulfilling its obligation, as it promised during the election and which is important not just to the government but to every member of this Legislature, that adequate and affordable housing be made available to these people.

1510

If we continue to pass restrictions and regulations, particularly when they are retroactive -- it is a principle of English common law by which this province has abided, as well as other provinces of this country, that you do not take away something retroactively from people. In fact, that is what this bill has done. This bill has deliberately and retroactively abolished or demolished the plans of small landlords particularly in terms of the renovations that they carried out with a view to making the accommodations more acceptable to their tenants.

Now, we all know the horror stories about those few landlords who have in fact gouged and have obtained very high rent increases -- and more often than not, and more specifically, those who have done it not in a vein of upgrading the accommodations but in a vein of simply being able to enhance the value of that building in order to flip it to another owner. Those people are certainly people no one in this House, or for that matter no one in Ontario, would view with a great deal of happiness. These are people who will have to, I suppose, live with their own conscience. But we are not talking about that. I did not sit on this committee, but from what I have heard in this House, the numbers of landlords in that regard were very small.

So this government, in its efforts to deal with this issue is using a sledgehammer to kill a relatively insignificant problem. Although many people will not understand it and perhaps view this as a good act on the part of the government, they will change their minds as the accommodations they live in are run down and are allowed to deteriorate to the extent where they are no longer habitable.

Housing is something that I am sure the minister understands and I am sure this House understands and I think most people in Ontario would understand is not something that you can create instantly tomorrow or you can refurbish or you can bring back up to a level of habitability.

If in fact this does occur -- and it has been suggested by members of this House that this is what will occur -- we are going to be faced again with a crisis situation where people are going to be living in accommodations which are not acceptable. If on the other side of the coin the government is not taking any steps to provide affordable housing to deal with the homeless, to deal with some of these people who perhaps will find their accommodations no longer to be habitable, we are going to have an even more major crisis.

I suggest that the government, instead of constantly making an effort to see bogeymen when they are not there, to create a problem and make it look greater than it is, should be looking at an effective way to try to create housing for all the people who are presently in Ontario and all those people who are coming on stream as it were, the young people. Young people will not be able to afford housing.

We are finding today that the food banks are another issue that this government has failed to address. They have not put forward any significant or positive way of dealing with that. They throw money at it and think that is a solution. We are finding that some people who are now coming to food banks are young couples who have a $200,000, $300,000 mortgage. By the time they finish making the interest payments on that mortgage, which probably never gets a dent into the principal, they are coming to the food banks. They are coming to the food banks for food for their children, and that is not being addressed. It is not being addressed at all by this government. This government seems to think that food banks are just something that should stick around for ever. I suggest to the government that until it realistically addresses the question of housing and stops creating barriers to affordable housing, it is in fact going to make this problem even greater.

I suggest that there are lots of solutions to food banks, just to address that as an aside to this entire issue. There are marketing boards in this province that require only a certain amount of food to be marketed. What happens to the stuff that is not being marketed? Surely that could be used through some form of non-profit corporation for people to open their own supermarkets and have the government give them seed money sufficient to operate and start working on their own. Make it accessible only to people who are on welfare or on family benefits. The government could do that in a credible way, in a humanitarian way, by providing them with cards that would identify them as people who could participate in that particular type of co-op operation.

But this government does not look at that. They do not look at the housing issue; they do not look at it realistically. They seem to think that the instant answer is to punish those so-called people who are gougers.

I have heard some of my colleagues in this House and I have read some of the Hansards showing there were a lot of people, seniors particularly, who had invested their money in perhaps a triplex or a fourplex, and this was their investment in their retirement, who are going to be detrimentally affected by particularly the retroactive provisions of this bill, and certainly the question of a government being in a position to set the rate every year.

Who is going to invest in an atmosphere like that? It is bad enough that we have to suffer the slings and arrows of Mr Crow and the Bank of Canada in terms of interest rates and be subject to what he says will be the case or will not be the case. That creates a bad enough economic environment to begin with, but when the government is telling the landlords of this province that every year the government, in its paternal wisdom, is going to set the rate at which rents will be allowed to rise, I suggest to the minister that in fact what the government has done is it has created an impossible situation for them in that they have no way of knowing what the return on their investment is going to be.

It becomes a political football. It becomes a political objective. In times when the government's popularity is up, it may perhaps allow a reasonable return. In times when its popularity is down, it is going to try to put pressure on, or when the Treasurer is running out of funds or feels that the rate should be less, it is going to be less. When you put it in the hands of government, you put it in a political arena. Obviously it is being reflected in terms of the decisions that are made being political decisions. I do not think anybody, the landlords or the tenants of this province, should be affected by what are political decisions.

I think there should be a process whereby people can be fairly dealt with in terms of rent increases. I think there should also be a process whereby repairs can be kept up on these buildings. Surely the government does not throw out the system because it says it does not work. What it does is to try to fine-tune it. Well, the minister did not try to do that.

What the minister did instead was, he said: "We don't know how to solve the problem. We don't know to deal with it. So here is what we're going to do and this is in accordance with our promises during the election," which were sexy, let's face it. Most tenants would look at it and say, "Hey, that's a pretty good deal."

However, I suggest that the government has not addressed the major solution, and I urge this government to look at it. Some of the Toronto members who were here during the week should take a walk downtown and see the young people, the seniors, all manner of people who are sleeping on the streets. I walked past one woman who used to keep herself warm at the vent to the athletic club that is on Wellesley Street, I think. She would sleep right by it during the wintertime so that she would not freeze to death.

What are we doing about them? Are we encouraging an economic atmosphere where there is going to be building by the private sector? No. Has the government got enough money to do it itself? No. Do we hear the Treasurer rushing out and throwing money around to develop affordable housing? No.

I suggest to members that the problem of the lady sleeping at that pipe at that athletic club to keep herself from freezing is going to become even greater. Perhaps we will run out of areas where these people can sleep and keep themselves warm for the winter. It is a problem that perhaps is going to get a little bit of relief now that the weather is getting warmer, but we better prepare for next winter, when there are people in fact who are going to freeze to death in this city and throughout the province in various towns and villages.

1520

I do not know how any responsible government member or any caring legislator could possibly walk by those people and say to himself or herself, "Well, that is their tough luck." That is really what members are saying by not doing anything about it. They are leaving these people to be the flotsam and jetsam of the world. I think the government has a responsibility to deal with that issue.

Housing and environment are issues that are common, that are important to this province. There should be areas where we could get together and perhaps come up with solutions, not having this fundamental attitude that government should do everything and that the private sector should be totally left out in the cold. That is not appropriate. Government can no longer do that. Government does not have the money to do it.

We have all seen how people react to additional taxes and we are all waiting with bated breath to see what the Treasurer is going to do in terms of trying to bring further revenues into the coffers so that we can deal with some of these problems. But surely the mind-set of the government cannot be that Big Brother should do it all and that the public sector is the only route to go. If they create that mind-set and if in fact they run with that mind-set, they will scare any type of free enterprise out of this province. Eventually you will have nothing from which they can reap the taxes to try to create the benefits that they say the public sector can create. So I suggest to the government that it better start changing its approach in terms of how it solves the needs of the people of this province. I think it also has to put on a priority level what those needs are.

We have seen the Minister of the Environment do a complete, 360-degree turn on environmental issues. The environment is probably listed, to be totally political, as one of the highest on the level of political importance. Yet what is being done? Nothing. In fact, the decisions that were taken by the former government have now been reversed totally, and with great accolades from the people outside of Toronto, because they think that is great. But it is so unrealistic that there is not a possibility in the world that it will ever be carried out.

So I suggest to the member of what is purported to be a caring government, at least in its Agenda for People and the things it put out during the election, that they start looking at the sensitive areas and start looking at how to address them and stop looking at it with a mind-set that simply says the government has all the answers, because it does not. They need co-operation from the private sector. They need a reasonable approach to it. They need to create an environment that is going to make the private sector feel comfortable and allow it to assist in a partnership with government to solve a lot of these problems that we have.

I am sure there are a lot of my colleagues who would like to get into this debate. For that reason I thank you, Mr Chairman, for the opportunity of addressing the House on this particularly important issue.

Hon Mr Cooke: I just want to respond to the member by first of all saying I appreciate what I assume was his apology for the comment that he made last Thursday. I accept it in the spirit in which it was said and I appreciate it.

One comment that he made during his speech or comments on this amendment is just totally inaccurate. It is not as if nothing else is happening in the Ministry of Housing while we are dealing with the rent bill. For one thing, we have taken steps to provide for the most aggressive approach to the provision of social housing that this province has ever had in the history of the province. We will come close to allocating all 30,000 units under the Homes Now program.

When I became Minister of Housing we would have been lucky, if we had followed the policies of the member's government, to achieve half of the 30,000 that his government had promised. They were not happening. So through an aggressive program of reallocation, removing an allocation of housing from somebody who is not able to meet the 30 September deadline, which we extended, which the member's government had refused to do -- we extended it from 30 March till the end of September -- many of those units are going to be built and there will be more social housing provided in this province for the people who need it than has ever been the case.

In fact, at one stage or another under the Homes Now program, the federal-provincial program and a couple of other provincial programs, there are 35,000 units in the planning stages in this province right now under those existing programs. So we are doing the best job we can, and it is a rather aggressive program to try to get that housing on the market as quickly as possible.

At the same time, we are developing our discussion document for supply on the long-term basis which will be released soon. We are looking at basement apartments and we certainly look to whatever position the member's party might be taking as an opposition party on basement apartments, because there has not been a consistent expression of either support or opposition from his caucus on this issue.

We are looking at the whole range of housing issues such as Ontario Housing Corp, so that we will have a housing strategy in this province for the first time that will look at all aspects of housing. Rent control is one of those aspects, one of the areas that has to be dealt with, and we are doing that. But to say that everything else is being neglected, just because the member is not up to date on what is happening in the Ministry of Housing, does not mean that what he says is so. In fact, what he says is totally and completely wrong and does not reflect the facts of the situation at all, and his party's critic knows it.

Mr Turnbull: I want to speak about this question of retroactivity. I find that retroactive legislation is repugnant and it should be rejected by all fair-minded people. I would particularly address this to my friends across in the NDP benches. Retroactive legislation is unfair at all times, but it is particularly unacceptable when it reaches back some four years before this government was elected. Phase-in orders which had been granted up to four years back will be nullified by this legislation, even though these landlords were in complete compliance with the existing legislation.

What should the investor do about investing in this province? What sort of message do we send out when we pass retroactive legislation? I would suggest that the kind of message that we send as legislators is much more serious than the ad that appeared in the Wall Street Journal suggesting that people should not have confidence in investing in this province. I say this to all parties, my own party included: We should reject the idea of retroactive legislation.

In defence of this retroactive legislation, we have heard the Minister of Housing mention on several occasions that this is not the first time a government has brought in retroactive legislation and has spoken of the fact that all parties have brought in some degree of retroactive legislation. I did a little bit of research on this, starting with the Residential Premises Rent Review Act of 1975. It received royal assent on 18 December 1975 and in fact its retroactive provisions went back to 29 July 1975, some four and a half months back in its retroactivity.

The next piece of legislation, which was also a Conservative piece of legislation, brought in in recognition of there being a problem with respect to the famous Cadillac Fairview flip, received royal assent on 21 December 1982 and was retroactive back to 31 October 1982, some two months retroactive. The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act received royal assent on 20 December 1985 and was retroactive back to 1 August 1985, which is four and a half months.

What we find with Bill 4 is that it is retroactive as much as four years back. How can anybody possibly plan his investments if governments change their minds? The investments were made and structured within compliance of the then existing legislation, Bill 51. If people who have, in every respect, ordered their affairs and, in many cases, had received phase-in orders, are told after the fact, "You're not going to get that," now this creates a particularly serious problem when you encourage people to invest their money. In fact, I would suggest that when governments bring in legislation, and a very complex and very all-embracing legislation, as Bill 51 was, then it does encourage companies and investors to order their investments in a specific framework.

1530

As mortgaging comes due for these buildings, the owners are unable to replace the financing. Indeed, it has been suggested that there has been a reduction in the value of buildings by as much as 25% or 30%. It has been suggested by the Minister of Housing that this was purely due to the fact that we have seen a drop in the value of real estate. This is fallacious, and I will tell members why.

With all other real estate -- and we are talking about investment real estate -- that dropped in value, it dropped due to the increase in vacancies and the unsurety that you would be able, even if you had a full building, to replace tenancies at the same rate that you had. This is not the case with this Bill 4. We have a very, very low vacancy rate, particularly in the Metro area, so it was purely a legislative act which reduced the value of the buildings. It was not anything to do with the functioning of the market. Any suggestion that it is anything to do with mortgage rates is incorrect, because we have seen much higher mortgage rates prior to this and it did not negatively affect the real estate, simply because you have controlled it in such a way that there was pass-through.

So all of those people who have ordered their affairs in such a way that they were in compliance with the legislation are now told, "You cannot get the money." I want to break the aspects of retroactivity into three areas. You have one which was the phase-in orders. These were people who had bought buildings and over a period of years were allowed up to a maximum of a 5% increase per year in the gross rents, to the maximum of five years. If you compound that out, that is a maximum of 30% over the five-year period, which is still substantially less than other real estate vehicles have been increased by and in fact almost any other comparable investment vehicle.

So even with the clause allowing financial loss, we found that real estate was increasing at a rate which was less than all of the other investment vehicles, even though it was a very management-intensive form of investment. Indeed, many of our small landlords who invested in real estate were immigrants to Canada, who had an abiding belief that in Canada you could put your grubstake into real estate and you would be safe for your old age. Many of the small landlords in this province who invested in a single building, put their life's savings into it, now will face total loss of their life's savings.

Mr Bradley: They didn't know the NDP was going to be elected.

Mr Turnbull: Indeed, they did not know the NDP was going to be elected. In fact, it is amazing, during the Bill 4 hearings, how many of the landlords came forward, small landlords, and said they had voted for the NDP and felt betrayed by the fact that their life's savings were in danger. These are typically people who do not have a pension fund. This is the only money they have.

With respect to the other areas of retroactivity, we are talking about money which had to be invested in the renovation of the building to keep these buildings safe and sound. The legislation very clearly suggested that you must spend the money before you could go and claim it back. It has also been suggested that there is some comparison with retroactive legislation for wage and price controls. I would like to prick that myth.

Wage and price controls, whether you like them or not, got at that year's income, but nobody had suggested to the people in advance that they should go out and buy something, that they must have bought something in order to qualify for the wage increase. This is not the case with capital costs. You must have expended them and substantially have completed them if you want to be able to claim them. So people went out, borrowed money from the banks and then did the repairs and, typically, this money was lent on a temporary basis to be consolidated into permanent financing after the rent increase, which was legally contemplated under Bill 51, was passed through.

I am saying this very much from the heart: that every single party, the NDP, the Liberals and the Conservatives, should consider the fact that retroactive legislation damages our democracy. It strikes at the heart of the way we govern people, because you cannot have confidence in the economy if we are going to reach back four years and say, "I don't care what you did; even though it was legal, we will take it away from you." What we are doing is we are now confiscating the life savings of many small landlords.

The large landlords will, I am sure, weather this storm. In fact, with respect to renovations, most of the large landlords had already done the large renovations. A lot of the big renovations that were coming up were the smaller landlords. We recognize that we must have renovations. There is approximately $10 billion worth of renovations outstanding. Not $10 million; $10 billion outstanding on buildings at this moment. We know from the Ministry of Housing's own numbers that in the region of $7 billion must be expended by the year 2000 if we are to save these buildings.

We have seen from the discussion paper, the so-called green paper, that in fact it appears that the government, albeit possibly reluctantly, has recognized the fact that there will have to be a mechanism to be able to pass through these expenditures back to the tenant.

We had a system under Bill 51 which recognized the need to be able to pass through these expenses, because it is not going to come out of heaven like manna, and it is likely that we will, in fact, have to get this money back from the tenants under the permanent legislation. So why do we have Bill 4 having this very controversial retroactive aspect? I cannot understand why the NDP will not back off on the retroactive aspect of this bill. If they backed off on this, they would have a much easier passage of Bill 4 because almost all of the discussion that we have had concerned itself with the retroactive aspects of this bill.

We have landlords who cannot be retroactively unbankrupt. They will be gone, and they will be lost as investors in this province. How many of the landlords went to our Housing critic and to myself, to the Liberals' Housing critic and, I believe, to the Minister of Housing and indeed the Premier, and said, "Please, don't make this retroactive?" But all for naught.

Unfortunately, we have set up in Bill 4 a feeling of them and us. We are not the enemy; we are legislators. In the opposition benches we have a different view, but we are not the enemy; we are trying to bring that view to bear for the government to consider, and retroactivity is the most dangerous aspect of all of the decisions it has made since coming to office. I will say that I believe this government has made very few decisions since coming to office, and that may have something to do with it.

1540

I would like to just read into the record two of the submissions that we got with respect to retroactivity.

"One of the simplest tests of fairness of a statute is to question whether law-abiding citizens could have been aware of a law to be capable of complying. It is fair for the state to say that as of tomorrow it is illegal to make a right turn at a red light, and it is the responsibility of all drivers to be aware of this change. It is patently unfair for the state to say that this change is retroactive to the last month and that because you made a right turn at that time you will be penalized under the new law.

"Yet the latter is exactly the situation in which landlords find themselves today. They have obeyed the law as it was on the books and relied on the legislation to guide their investment decisions. In some cases, they have even received binding orders from the government stating the rent increases to which they are entitled.

"In our view, the most offensive parts of Bill 4 are those sections which eliminate the landlord's right to recover costs for capital expenditure that had been previously approved by the rent review process. We believe this is simply unconscionable in a modern democratic society. If the government wants to change the law, it has every right and every opportunity to do so during its term of office. It can, given its majority, do what it wants, when it wants. What it cannot do and must not be allowed to do is rewrite history to suit its own ideology.

"Not only is such a course of action, in our view, unfair, it is probably illegal as well. The government has been asked to refer Bill 4 to the courts for the ruling on its retroactive sections of the bill. It is our prediction that the government will refuse to do so." In fact, they have since refused to do so. "They will argue that tenant protection is just too important to wait. We further predict that, if given the opportunity, the courts will rule those sections illegal."

Now in point of fact, during committee hearings on Bill 4 the government accepted an amendment put forward by the Liberals that anybody who had gotten a conditional order would be allowed to get those conditional orders up to a maximum of 15% with respect to those orders. We know that of the approximately 60 landlords who had gone the route of getting a conditional order, the majority of all of those landlords will in fact get most of their money out of this move.

We in the Conservative Party opposed that because we said that what they are doing is setting up two classes of landlords who have done repairs: those who believed Bill 51 and the legislation and ordered their affairs in compliance with that and those others who did not completely trust the government and went and got a conditional order.

Is this what we have to do? Is this the message that we, as legislators, want to send: that if you ever get a law where there is any ability to get a further clarification or a further guarantee from the government, go for it because you cannot trust governments?

There is a serious message in this and it is a message which I am trying desperately to get through, because indeed this legislation would probably have been passed if it were not for the retroactive aspects of this legislation.

We have a letter from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business:

"The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, on behalf of our real estate and construction members in Ontario, would like to register our dismay at the government's plans, as expressed in Bill 4, to make retroactive the changes to Ontario's rent review legislation. Retroactivity is not only unsettling to the economy and upsetting to the economy's need for certainty and the ability to plan -- retroactivity is by nature unfair. It penalizes people for past actions after the fact, when no changes or adjustments are possible. It would be like legislating a retroactive salary cut for the MPPs and penalizing those who spent the 'excess' funds which they have received in good faith since October 1.

"Our affected members' complaints with Bill 4 do not stop at the unfair retroactivity provision. However, the industry and sectoral associations who are appearing before the committee have the expertise to address the substantive provisions of the bill.

"CFIB strongly recommends to the committee that the retroactive provision of Bill 4 be deleted and that amendments which are passed come into effect in a balanced and fair way."

The concern was not just expressed by landlords; it was expressed by tenants. I think that the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Housing will recall the lady who was a superintendent of a small apartment building in London, who emphasized that she had undertaken a course of action without any reference to her landlord, and all of the tenants in that building had signed a petition which was submitted to us at that time. The tenants said:

"Look, this is a good landlord who has undertaken a lot of work for us without going to rent review in many cases, but where he has gone to rent review it is because of some major investment which needed to be done and it was in our best interest that it be done. We think it's unfair. Whilst we would love not to pay the rent increase" -- and they were very vocal about that -- "nevertheless, we think it's unfair." Surely that is what we should be concerned about, fairness.

I think that the NDP would find it patently unfair if after the next election it is defeated and we should be the government and we retroactively were to claw back for the landlords any rent increases. It would be wrong, just as this is wrong. We are elected to govern during our mandate, we are not elected to govern four years before our mandate, and that is precisely what we are doing with this retroactive provision. We have set up legislation which says, "Please repair your buildings." We have all kinds of regulations which insist that a landlord must maintain his building in good repair, and it is quite clear from all of the foregoing bills that we have had that it was always contemplated that the tenant would have that passed through to him. Given that fact, how can we possibly change history?

I never believed that we would live in a 1984. I guess that is a rather jaded old expression now, but I remember as a kid reading 1984. We always were rather frightened of this Big Brother attitude, and that is what happens when you go to retroactive legislation and you rewrite history.

If the government is going to have the provision that it allows the flow-through of capital costs with the permanent legislation, it is patently unfair to disallow it now, after the people have made them. If the government had come in and said, "Look, as of this date you cannot spend another penny unless we approve it," that is okay. The government would not get any discussion on that from me. That is their right. I may disagree with them and I might make that disagreement known, but I would not be fighting as hard as I am fighting now, because we are striking at the very essence of the way we govern people.

In the Agenda for People, that rather jaded document --

Mr Bradley: Agenda for what?

Mr Turnbull: Yes, agenda for power -- they clearly told us that they would bring in legislation, that there would be one increase per year for tenants and that would be based on inflation. We knew it was coming. Tenants knew it and they liked it, let's have no doubts about that, but they did not know the government was going to back off and change things when it found there was no money for renovations unless it allowed them to be passed through, and that it is why it is contemplated in the permanent legislation. But in that same document, members will remember, there was the provision that we would have mortgages for private home owners at 10.5%. It was quite simple: The government would borrow money at its cost of borrowing. There was going to be no cost to the taxpayer and, magically, everybody who had difficulty with his mortgage was going to get a 10.5% mortgage. In these difficult times that we have been through -- and thank God interest rates are beginning to come down now -- the NDP did nothing about that yet it launched ahead with this ill-thought-out legislation with respect to tenancies.

1550

We know that this legislation falls very far of the mark of what is needed. Forty per cent of all tenants do not have enough money to pay their rent now. It does not matter what you do in terms of controlling rental increases, they do not have enough money. We have suggested that we introduce a system of shelter allowances, and the NDP's answer to that is, "Oh, you want us to subsidize landlords." No, we do not want the government to subsidize landlords; we want it to subsidize the people who cannot afford their rent. Then they would not need to go to food banks.

When we look at the worsening situation with food banks, we realize that all of this issue is linked together, yet the NDP is not addressing it in the right way. They are going after landlords and they are going to kill the private sector. We will not have any investment in the construction of rental housing by the private sector. Even if the NDP were to lose government tomorrow, probably it has driven away the confidence of the private sector for many, many years to come. Indeed, the people who will bear the greatest brunt of this will be the people who elect the NDP.

The statements of the Minister of Housing that he is allergic to landlords are, I think, some of the most dismaying words that we could ever imagine. The Premier has not asked for the resignation of the Minister of Housing, yet he is saying he is allergic to a whole segment of the electorate. The NDP has been elected, believe it or not, to represent everybody in this province. They are the government and they have a responsibility.

We are killing free enterprise and we are seeing this every day. We have seen that six out of 10 provinces in Canada have had a rise in the number of jobs, and Ontario continues to lose jobs. Why? We are supposedly the engine of the Canadian economy. I would suggest precisely because of this kind of legislation. We now have the situation that Ontario is the least desirable place in Canada to invest. We have a government that is unprepared to control the wage increases to its own civil servants, yet we are now controlling landlords' incomes even after they have spent the money they were encouraged to spend.

I have a letter here about jobs being lost:

"Dear Minister:

"Re: Proposed rent control legislation.

"The purpose of this letter is to voice my concern about the above-noted legislation and its adverse impact on the construction industry.

"I am a general contractor who specializes in commercial and residential construction. A major part of my work involves apartment renovations. During the last three to four years, I have employed approximately eight people.

"This past summer, with the slowdown in residential and commercial construction, I pursued several apartment renovation jobs to keep my people employed. In mid-October 1990, I had verbal commitments for approximately $191,000 of work. However, these commitments evaporated after 28 November 1990, when you introduced your moratorium legislation.

"The work included construction and installation of 28 kitchen cupboard sets in two buildings that are both 27 years old. Existing cupboards are original and in need of replacement, contract value $57,500; bathroom renovations to the above-mentioned buildings, ie, replace tub area, drywall, new ceramic tile, linoleum, contract value $42,000; replace roof on 33-unit building, contract value $54,000; major repairs to a concrete parking structure, contract value $12,000; balcony renovations, replacement sidewalk installation, boundary fence construction, contract value $25,500.

"The landlords advised me that they were cancelling the jobs for now because the work was considered capital expenditures and they would not be allowed corresponding rent increases.

"Partly as a result of the above, I have laid off all but two of my people. A recession was already here when your proposed legislation was announced. However, your announcement has made the already bleak employment opportunities in the construction industry worse, especially the renovation segment.

"I recently read comments attributed to you that landlords were exaggerating the impact rent controls were having on the construction industry and related jobs. Mr Cooke, that is not true!! Jobs are being lost. Necessary renovations are needed, yet landlords are delaying such work. I have experienced this first hand.

"Consequently in view of the above would you please provide:

"(i) Your government's definition of what constitutes the difference between a necessary and luxury renovation?

"(ii) Will the moratorium be lifted within two years? Will it be extended?

"(iii) How will a revised capital expenditure rule work in the future?

"I am neither a landlord or a tenant. However, this arbitrary legislation adversely affects me and my employees.

"Please rescind Bill 4.

"Sincerely,

"Ken Schildt."

I have got pages and pages of letters, and I could go on for ever with this, but the bottom line is we have a serious problem. Let me recap: Retroactive legislation attacks the confidence in the economy. Retroactive legislation unfairly discriminates against people who have been encouraged to spend money under the old legislation. Retroactive legislation will lead to a total discouragement of anybody to build any rental accommodation. We are losing jobs, we are exacerbating the hard times that Ontario is already experiencing and the attitude of this government is sending out a message which says, "Do not invest in Ontario, because we might retroactively take away that which you believe is rightfully yours." In short, we are building a province of fear and a province where housing standards will continue to slip. Unless we get rid of this retroactive legislation, this clause in the bill, the government will find this party opposing it for ever.

We believe in clean, affordable housing and we believe that we can work with the government. We can show it, because we have the business experience, how it can get more development. But this is not the way to encourage development; this is the way to kill development. We are going to create a situation such as exists in New York. It is very strange that in New York there is key money and there are landlords who walk away from buildings, yet in all of the other administrations in the United States you find landlords falling over themselves to build new rental accommodation. Strangely enough, the rent is not that much higher -- sometimes it is lower -- but the fact is that we have a mind-set that we are working against.

I ask them, please put that mind-set to one side. Forget that we are Conservatives and they are NDP. Let's try and create affordable housing. But first of all, you have to create an atmosphere of trust, and retroactivity does not create an atmosphere of trust.

1600

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to say a few more words about retroactivity, because that is the clause we are on in this bill, as I understand it.

This weekend the local paper in Ottawa had an insert on investment within our community. One of the articles that popped off the page is headed, "Rental Effects Felt Throughout the Area" and states:

"The province's new regulation of rent reviews is already having a negative effect on rental property values and the worst is yet to come. In just a few short months since these new regulations were announced, we have seen loan defaults and bankruptcies among owners and bankruptcies among those who provide rental properties in this city."

That is the worry I have: bankruptcies, departing of investment from our city of Ottawa and from this province in general. So the general public interest is at stake.

Today I would like to quote from some of the presenters we had as we went across this province on Bill 4:

"No government has the right to be unfair. Retroactivity is wrong and it's unfair. The retroactive clause in Bill 4 is immoral, unethical, shameful and totally unacceptable." That from a presenter to our committee.

"The retroactive aspect particularly is abhorrent and repugnant and will result in financial losses to our company. Legislation should be prospective rather than retroactive."

And again: "Retroactive legislation will not hurt those who have abused the system -- they have already escaped -- but it will crucify many small landlords and investors."

From another presenter, "The government should recognize that retroactive legislation is unfair and that the public has a perfect right to proceed with its affairs in the expectation that only the future is subject to the possibility of change, not the past."

As we look at this, we see that this particular clause of the bill, the clause on retroactivity, is that which is most objectionable across this province, because it is the principle of the matter.

In most cases, when governments come to office and they are going to make major changes to significant pieces of legislation that have become part and parcel of the lifestyle and basis upon which people make judgements in a province, they grandfather; they grandfather those people who are in process or who will be affected immediately who somehow could not prepare for the events of this legislation. That happens in all ministries, in legislation that arises in all areas of operation of government. That is what I personally had been used to and what I thought would be the fair way in which this particular bill could have been dealt with.

Bill 4 completely ignores that concept of grandfathering, grandfathering that is taken into account whether you are talking about collective negotiations or legislation that is going to take effect on a given date.

So this is the regret I have. It is the regret I have that I mentioned when I rose on Thursday last, that the investors, small landlords, everyone has been put into a tailspin of uncertainty about what and how they can depend on this government and its operations. Will there be another piece of legislation, whether it be from another ministry such as Environment, whether it be another ministry such as Revenue, that will have retroactivity? That is the question people are asking, and that is making the investment community, and indeed the individual citizens of this province, very uncertain, and that I regret deeply.

Therefore, retroactivity is abhorrent, it is repugnant. The people of Ontario have told us so, and I wish this government would listen to that request to not make this piece of legislation retroactive, but that it would have every single request that is before and under rent review in process as of 28 November be continued to its completion. We have made that request. It has not been attended to.

I have deep regret with the retroactivity of this legislation, as does each and every person in this province. Retroactivity is not a part of governing that is acceptable. It is a step in the wrong direction, a step backwards when we are in a time when we need progressive, positive action.

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the parliamentary assistant. We have heard throughout the hearings around this province grave concerns about the whole retroactive aspect of these hearings. We have had landlords come and literally break down in tears. We have had landlords tell us their life savings are gone, dealing specifically with the retroactive nature of the legislation. We have had employees come and say they have lost their jobs because of the retroactive aspect. Jobs that had been planned have been cancelled, and they have lost their jobs and they have been added to the unemployment rolls of this province. We have had individuals from financial institutions who have told us, and individuals from within and outside the province who have said they are no longer going to invest in the housing stock of this province. We have had a whole series of very negative comments, comments that affect us in law and I would hope comments that would affect the members opposite from within. They have to have compassion for these people, and I hope they do.

I guess my question to the parliamentary assistant is: Has that testimony and the stories that have been relayed in this debate in this committee had any effect on her that would result in the government removing the retroactive nature of this legislation and at the very least supporting this amendment that has been put forward by the Liberal critic?

Ms Harrington: Certainly we have had a lot to listen to in the last two months, and I understand what the member is saying, that there are some difficulties, and of course we recognize that. The whole word of "retroactivity" is not something that one would desire. I understand that as well.

Let me go a little further. The whole idea of this bill is protection. What it is, obviously, is a moratorium so that we can move on to get a fair system so that people all over this province, whether they be landlords or tenants or investors, know that we have a system, that it is a fair system and how it will work for them, and we are genuinely working towards that.

But let's look at this particular bill. Of all the increases above the guideline this year of 5.4%, 110,000 of these increases above the guideline will be stopped by this moratorium and 130,000 of these increases will flow through.

Now I ask the member, is that protection for the people of this province? When they voted, they voted for protection, and I think the member would agree that it was stated very clearly that there would be protection in the Agenda for People, which his colleague was just mentioning.

I am saying to have any validity to the word "protection" that this government is talking about, we are not even stopping half, not even stopping half of the increases above guideline that could go through in this province. So I am saying that for this government to be in any way credible, this is a bare minimum.

1610

Let me go a little further. I went to a building in the central part of Toronto. Actually, it is a very good area in Toronto, just south of Eglinton. I am not sure exactly which riding it is. It looked like a very good neighbourhood. I went in the building to talk to these tenants. They had asked me to go there. And when you go into the building you are amazed at the lack of maintenance, the state that building is in.

When I spoke to these people -- there were maybe 25 of them -- they were explaining to me the rent increases that they were now faced with. They were paying, for a two-bedroom apartment, $1,300, and they looked at me and they said: "Okay, you have a new government. You have a majority. Aren't you able to stop these kinds of rent increases?" I had to say to them: "No. No, you're part of the 130,000 we are not protecting." Why should we discriminate against them? Why should they not be protected?

Just last Wednesday night I was in Kitchener, and I want to tell members about a woman who came and spoke to me there. This is the statement she gave me. She talked about their building and the increases in this building where she lives, and she has lived in this building 22 years. So this problem is not confined to Toronto, whether it be the Parkdale area of Toronto or the East York area of Toronto or the more fashionable and upscale areas of Toronto. The problem is across Ontario. She is telling me that in the rent review under the RRRA:

"Too often decisions are made hastily in favour of the landlords without any input from tenants, who are often not informed when these decisions are being made. We tenants do not feel there is any justification for increases above the guideline limit to this building, which is not being maintained properly. We would not object to any increases if we had anything to show for it."

I have talked to many tenants. Even last week in Niagara Falls we held a meeting and I heard from tenants and landlords in my riding of Niagara Falls, and the tenants were very reasonable. They wanted to be able to pay for costs that they could see were going into that building.

This woman said:

"Landlords claim financial hardship, but this is not due to money being spent on maintenance or repairs, it is because they obviously overextended themselves financially when they purchased the building. These particular people in Kitchener are using 90% of their rental income to pay the interest charges on their three mortgages. For 20 years, under previous management, this building was adequately maintained without asking the tenants to pay increases above the guideline." For 20 years, no increase above guideline.

Let me just tell members what it is like to live there, because I sat there and I was amazed. First of all, elevators: This woman had her husband come back from the hospital and he needed daily home care. There was a visiting VON nurse who was supposed to come and change his dressing.

"Two of the three elevators are usually out of service, and when three are out there is a panic situation for the elderly living in the building." This woman quoted from her personal history that on three occasions the nurse had to phone and say she could not come up because of the elevators being out of order.

The second fact that this woman told me was that all the water in the building could be shut off without warning and she found it necessary to heat ice cubes from her freezer in order to try to change her husband's dressings.

The laundry room: The quote here is, "Machines are in filthy conditions, often out of order for days at a time." Having moved into an apartment here in Toronto, I cannot fathom trying to live under conditions where one would try to do laundry in facilities like that.

Finally, there are a couple of other things I would like to let members know about what it is like:

"This building is accessible to anyone, although originally we paid for security. There is no lock on the back door. Transients have been found loitering, sleeping, eating in the stairways and hallways. There is no security supervision by the superintendents, who have a 'Do Not Disturb' sign after 5 pm on their doors.

"This was a nice building at one time. The pool is filthy: dirty water, mud, old furniture, tin cans, etc. It is a breeding area for mosquitoes, other insects and vermin. The Kitchener property standards officer warned management last summer that it should be filled in as it is a health hazard, but nothing has been done about it."

I would like to submit to the House that there was a change last September, that the people in this province voted for protection, and I am saying that this government is trying to live up to the Agenda for People and give them some protection, albeit only less than half. Therefore, we need this bill.

Ms Poole: I would like to make a few final comments. First of all, when the parliamentary assistant talked about what the people of this province voted for on 6 September, she said they voted for protection. I would also put to the House that the people of this province voted for the concept of fairness, and I have never been one to think that two wrongs make a right. So the inequities that she talked about that tenants were undergoing under the last few years, I agree with her that those situations should be remedied, but I do not agree that they have to be remedied by going to the extreme of making a retroactive, unfair bill such as Bill 4.

What I really wanted to address today was the fact that we had heard last week about how landlords are opposed to the retroactivity, how investors are, how financial institutions are. We have heard how many tenants are opposed to the retroactivity because of the issue of fairness. Today the member for Ottawa-Rideau talked about some of the presenters to our committee and what they said about retroactivity. I quoted from the legal counsel for the standing committee on regulations and private bills, where he said that retroactivity was not desirable and should not be encountered, and of course we heard from members of the Liberal caucus and members of the Conservative caucus who were opposed to retroactivity.

But today I would like to quote from four NDP members who also think that retroactivity is unfair. This is not something that was said years ago in a different life in a different time. These comments were taken from Hansard just last Thursday 4 April, when we were debating another resolution in the House. On Thursday the debate was about the member for Kenora's resolution on health care in northern Ontario, but surprisingly NDP members had a different thing to say when they were considering an opposition member's resolution.

I will first quote from the member for Cochrane North, who is an NDP member, as members are aware:

"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. As I said, I support it in principle, with the exception of the retroactivity of it."

Mr Tilson: What party is he with?

Ms Poole: He is with the New Democratic Party. That was an NDP member who said those words. But it got better.

The member for Dovercourt gave a very eloquent speech on the member for Kenora's resolution. The member for Dovercourt said: "That is the issue of retroactivity that some members have spoken to. I certainly do not see how the retroactivity could be brought about."

Now, the member for Dovercourt is a gutsy man, and he said he was going to vote for it in spite of the retroactivity. But then we went to the member for Perth, who spoke about "a retroactivity that is difficult for us to support because we can see the administration problems of it."

Finally, we go to the NDP member for London South.

Mr Mancini: Not the member for London South.

Ms Poole: I am afraid so, the NDP member for London South. He said: "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."

1620

Mr Mancini: Is that the member for London South who we know?

Ms Poole: That is the NDP member for London South who we know. The NDP members who have spoken -- well, no, they have not spoken. I must say that the NDP members have been quite silent on this issue.

Mr Mancini: Not allowed to speak.

Ms Poole: Not allowed to speak. But amid the resounding silence, we have four NDP members standing up in this House a mere four days ago expounding on the evils of retroactivity.

Mr Mancini: Oh, yes, that was then.

Ms Poole: And this is now. So it is obvious that many people in this province have a real problem with retroactivity and I think it is time that this government addressed it.

One of the other ironies is that the one thing that landlords and tenants have agreed on about the long-term legislation is that the time period is too short. The consultation cannot be meaningful and cannot produce good solutions because it is being rushed.

I was at an interesting meeting actually at North Toronto Collegiate, on 23 March. These were meetings held by the Minister of Housing. When tenant groups said to him, "Why can't you slow down the process for the long-term legislation?" the minister's answer was: "We can't. We have to get it in quickly because of what's happened with Bill 4."

I took very careful notes of what he said so that I could quote them back to members, because I thought it was astounding that a minister would actually admit that the interim bill that he had before the House was so inadequate and was creating so many problems that they had to rush through the long-term legislation in order to deal with it.

The minister said, "We've got to move quickly because of uncertainty in the financial community, because banks won't lend money to the owners any more, and in the labour community, because they won't recover because of the uncertainty in the whole field right now."

It is Bill 4 that has created this uncertainty, both in the financial community and in the renovation and supplier trades. When those people came before our committee, they said: "Obviously the recession has an impact on our industry, but we're not here to talk about that. We're not here to talk about seasonal adjustments in employment. We're here to talk about the jobs that we've lost because of Bill 4."

In fact, there were people from the renovation trades who felt so strongly about it that they actually took an ad out in the Toronto Sun last December. It said: "Thank you, Mr Rae. Your proposed rent control law may have saved me $25 per month on rent. Unfortunately, as a direct result of this act, I have just lost my job," and it is signed by seven former employees of RAM Restoration Inc, seven of the first victims of the new rent control laws.

So the minister should not try to say it is the recession, because that is not what we heard. The minister's own union people, when they came to our committee, said they estimated 60% of the job losses in the construction industry, renovation and trades right now were a direct result of Bill 4.

Mr Mancini: Maybe they don't care about those people.

Ms Poole: They do not care about those people, but they are tenants. The very people he has pledged to protect are also being harmed. So let's keep things in perspective. We have another opportunity, perhaps a last opportunity, here in this House to address the retroactivity. I, for one, would think much more highly of the minister if he stood up and said, "The ramifications are obviously much more serious than we believed at the time and we've listened."

Mr Grandmaître: "We've goofed."

Ms Poole: No, they do not even have to say, "We've goofed." It is a new government. They came in, they brought in this legislation very quickly, so I do not expect a mea culpa. All I expect is the fairness and the justice of saying, "There is something we have to change and there is an amendment that we are now prepared to consider under Bill 4."

I hope when it comes time to vote for this bill that the NDP members, the four who stood up opposed to the retroactivity in the resolution last Thursday, will put their consciences on the line when they vote for or against Bill 4, because the same retroactivity is now engendered in this bill. I notice all the NDP members are amazingly quiet this afternoon and they do not even look like they are sleeping.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I think they are so quiet because there is not a quorum in here and I would submit that I think the member for Eglinton should have that respect.

The First Deputy Chair: Make a count, please, for quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is present, Madam Chair.

The First Deputy Chair Thank you. Please continue.

Ms Poole: Thank you, Madam Chair. While I thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for his kind intervention on my behalf to make sure that adequate members were present to give the member for Eglinton due respect, I guess we have the magic 20.

I do not really want to prolong this debate. Landlords and tenants across this province are quite anxious to find out what the final resolution of this bill is. They are in limbo, right now, rent review is in limbo and I think we should get on with it. Let us debate our motions, but let members of the government listen, because that is another reason they were elected on 6 September. The people of this province thought they were going to listen, so the government ignores their advice at its peril.

Mr Tilson: I would like to make some concluding remarks on this amendment. I have indicated that our party certainly supports the amendment, as we did at the committee. We do so because, as I think and as I have indicated several times, this is perhaps one of the greatest concerns that has been voiced, not only at the hearings but in correspondence I am sure many members have received from members of their constituencies. So I think the Legislature should give fair consideration to it.

The member for Niagara Falls does give me some concern with respect to many of her comments and I guess again it gets back to the principle of fairness. When I listened to her, there is no question there is a social problem in this province. There are tenants who cannot afford any increase, and of course this legislation does not deal with those tenants. Thirty per cent of the tenants of this province cannot afford any increase and that has not been addressed by this interim legislation.

To stand up and say that this interim bill is solving the problem -- it is just unbelievable that she would do that. Again, I guess it gets back to the principle that some people are more equal than others. I think that is the difference between her party and our party. We try to look at the overall economy of the province. We look at the investment in this province. We look at the employment of this province. We look at improving the capital structures of our housing and we look at the tenants. We do not want the tenants to live in slums. We want to encourage the landlords not only to build new housing accommodation but to keep up what they have now, to do the major renovations that are required. Some 75% of the buildings of this province are 20 years old or more. It is regrettable that this government will not take into consideration all of the people of this province.

I would like to quote from this morning's edition of the Toronto Sun, specifically a letter to the editor on this whole subject. This was written by a Paul L. Casciato. The letter says:

"So NDP housing minister Dave Cooke is 'allergic' to landlords? As a tenant I have a feeling that Ontario is about to discover a simple equation -- tight rent controls equals filthy slums. When my landlord cannot afford to make simple repairs because the Queen's Park sanctimocrats believe profit is 'evil,' I know who is going to lose. Perhaps our Housing minister can become a tenant in a Toronto apartment block while holding his portfolio. Otherwise, if we can safely live in Toronto's coming slums until the next elections, tenants will only be glad to help Cooke distance himself from his allergy."

1630

The editors of the Toronto Sun added the comments, "Hey, Bob, in case you hadn't noticed, the honeymoon is over." And the honeymoon is over, I say to the member for Niagara Falls. I am most disappointed that she did not listen to the great amount of testimony that came to us at the hearings, letters that I am sure have been written. I cannot believe that landlords in her own riding have not contacted her with respect to the terrible effects the retroactive nature of his legislation is having on them. I cannot believe that. She does refer to other items, and I am sure there have been landlords who have contacted her. I would hope that she would have referred to those people at this committee.

There have been a number of people who objected specifically to the retroactive nature of this legislation. Specifically, there was one in the early stages of the hearings, R. M. Baker, who contacted us and dealt specifically with the retroactive nature. This was a letter directed to the Premier, which I believe members of our committee all have, and I would like to share that letter with members of this committee:

"I admired you when you said that if your government made a mistake, you hoped you would be able to admit it and go on from there. Mr Rae, I think your government has just made its first dreadful mistake.

"You have retroactively cancelled Liberal legislation, which enabled landlords to arrange for work to be done on their properties.

"I have no opinion on the rights and wrongs of the landlord/tenant quagmire. But I do know that no one is safe if decisions made under existing laws can be rendered illegal by later laws.

"Five hundred years ago a similar situation occurred. A new government came into power in England, when Henry Tudor invaded the country and defeated King Richard III at the battle of Bosworth. One of the first things Henry did was to retroactively date his reign from the day before the battle, thus transforming Richard's royal army into a band of rebels who had taken arms against their true king. Twenty-eight of Richard's principal adherents were thus guilty of high treason.

"In spite of the fact that they were a conquered people, Englishmen dared to speak out against Henry's bill. 'Oh God! what security shall our kings have henceforth...' one man wrote. Feeling was so high Parliament even brought in a bill against the idea of future retroactive dating.

"I feel as stunned as did those Englishmen of yesterday. Any government which makes a retroactive cancellation of existing laws, takes away the security and trust of all.

"Your government's action seems to me to be so serious in its implications for every single person in Ontario that the Civil Liberties Association should pursue the matter."

And she adds:

"With all good wishes for your future success."

I believe that the people of Ontario want this government to be successful in trying to deal with the housing problem in this province. I think we all do, because it is one of the serious problems that this province has. However, the retroactive nature has caused many, many problems and it has created more problems than what it is trying to solve: bankruptcies, people losing their homes. It is on the government's shoulders that that responsibility will be borne.

There was a letter from a Steven Manders which we received in February. He also spoke with respect to the retroactive aspect of this legislation. I would just like to refer to some of the sections in the letter:

"The whole situation in Ontario is now highly polarized, a battleground where formerly it was fairly amiable, occasional friction from both sides but generally it worked as it still does elsewhere across the country."

Of course, I have submitted that the previous legislation was terribly bureaucratic, was quagmired. Your party made the same pitch during the election and I think people believed you. However, you have created an unbelievable friction between landlords and tenants. When I look at the demonstrations that have occurred in this building and elsewhere -- landlord, tenant, employee, people who are losing their jobs -- it is unfortunate that you have created that animosity between the people of this province.

Mr Manders goes on to say:

"Retroactive rules give the investors a very clear message, 'We despise landlords, you are in for a rough time.' The message is not new, you have only repeated the message they have been getting for years which is why there has been a collapse in new apartment starts across the province. This in turn has caused a rental shortage and higher prices of severity and duration unknown elsewhere in Canada."

Clearly that is exactly what the government's retroactive legislation has said, and they have said it. They have talked about the greedy landlords. They have despised the landlords of this province, and it will be years before that trust will be built up between the landlord and the tenant because of this very regressive legislation.

Mr Manders continues by stating: "Why should builders put up more apartments in Hull, Quebec than in Ontario despite lower rents and higher vacancies. The construction costs are identical, the area functions as a single market, the people move freely back and forth. The answer is simple, the Quebec government is not hostile to landlords so they build there....

"The irony is that if the Ontario government adopted similar policies as other provincial governments there is no logical reason why the higher Ontario rents won't slowly merge with the other provinces'. Why shouldn't they? In Hull, the landlords are free to charge a million dollars a month rent if they wished, it's true, yet they freely charge $122 per month less for a two-bedroom apartment than across the river and continue to build. Be honest with yourself, where are the tenants' needs best served?

"Have you noticed that there are virtually no new apartment buildings with less than 25 units and less than 15 years old in Ontario yet the other provinces are full of them. Present legislation was sufficiently complex and hostile that it cut off all that supply and only a few major developers were building large products with huge subsidies. Our NDP government has freely chosen to aggravate the situation. Retroactivity probably affected only a few per cent of Ontario's apartments, but the message to all landlords is clear, they will be treated with contempt for the next five years. No problem. There are stocks and bonds and RRSPs to invest in."

And I think that has been quite clear with this government. This government has made it clear from the outset that it plans to make housing a public utility.

The Premier has stated it. We have asked him questions in this House. It has gone undenied and he clearly intends to take over the housing of this province and make it a public utility.

Mr Manders goes on by saying: "Now the tenants have a problem. The government cannot possibly build 10,000 small apartment complexes, it may be able to manage 100 very large ones like St James Place, but which would you rather raise children in? Further, the government will now be responsible for the entire new rental housing stock, not just supplementary stock for special cases and it is needed now, not years down the road after endless bureaucracy gets involved with the very best of intentions. The government should supplement the private sector to fill specific needs. It can afford that, it can achieve that, and it will fail in that if it attempts to replace the entire private sector. Landlords don't mind that kind of competition. It isn't hostile." And that is the government's problem. It is being hostile.

He concludes by saying: "It is the government's attitude that it is critical in getting more affordable rental units, it is even more important than simple rent levels which are already the highest in Canada. Retroactivity tells the developers that there may be more rude surprises from this government" and the only safe place is to move.

I ask the member for Niagara Falls if that is really the message that she and her minister wish to give this province. I do hope that she responds to that question, as to the message that she is clearly giving the people and the investors of this province.

A further comment with respect to the effect of retroactivity was given to us by a Dick and Bonnie Mabee of Ottawa in the early part of January. They talked about the detrimental effect of retroactivity on them.

They commented:

"We are particularly opposed to the retroactive way in which they are intended to be applied. If rent review orders made since 1 October are rescinded, we will have to forgo substantial rent increases authorized for us since then. In our case, rental increases of over 50% were authorized because of financial loss. This roll-back would be extremely unfair to us and would likely be detrimental to the tenants."

I think that is again the issue: the fairness of the entire legislation, where under the old rules orders were made and now for some unheard-of reason, they are cancelled.

1640

The Mabees continue by saying -- and this is a letter not from a conglomerate of landlords; it is from small, average people who own a six-unit building -- "We bought our relatively small six-unit building in 1989 to be the main source of our retirement income." That is, I think, the major problem that the people of the government forget: the effect that is having on all of these small landlords. This is their source of their retirement income, and the government is destroying their retirement funds.

They continue by saying: "We have no way near paid for it as yet, but hope to pay the mortgage off between now and when we retire. Our mortgage represents 65% of the purchase price.

"The previous owners had owned the building for 35 years. They had been carrying it without a mortgage and had let the rents fall well below the comparable market rents. The price we had to pay reflected the fact that the rents could probably be increased to market rents, based on the 'financial loss' rules of rent review."

In other words, these people looked at the current laws at the time, the laws that were under Bill 51, which said exactly what phase-ins could be made, and they purchased a building, relying on the rules set by the province of Ontario.

"We knew the rents would only be allowed to be increased towards market rents gradually, but because the building seemed solidly constructed, well located and had good tenants, we decided the price was not unfair. We were also willing and able to go through the work involved in the rent review process.

"We submitted our request to be allowed to increase rents to market levels based on the 'financial loss' rules and the request was granted by an order on Oct. 11, 1990. This order reflected the fact that rents should be increased over time by more than 50% to overcome our financial losses. (We believe that to reflect market rates rents should go up even higher; this is partly supported by the fact that the mortgage amount on which our loss is determined is only 65% of the purchase price.)

"Thus, if the new rules rescind this order, our rents will be stuck at very uneconomic levels and we will become victims of retroactive changes in the rules. We will have locked ourselves into an uneconomic investment because the rules in place at the time of the investment (which we have since confirmed that a large increase is needed) were changed. In other words, we will have committed our total savings to something which the government at first determined would be economic and then later retroactively decided it couldn't.

"Even if we were to exercise our options to sell the building, this wouldn't solve the problem. No buyer would be willing to pay as much as we did with rents capped at uneconomic levels."

I ask the member for Niagara Falls, would she buy this building? Would she buy this building under the rules that have been set by her government? I imagine her answer to that is no, but I will be interested in hearing from her.

They conclude their remarks by saying:

"But it's not only we, the owners, who will suffer. Such situations will also be bad for tenants, the very people the designers of the new rules are asked to help. Upkeep of units will decline. In our case, we recently discovered the roof and furnace are in need of major repairs. We don't see how we can afford to make the necessary repairs. (If we are not allowed to raise rents enough to break even and if the costs of major repairs cannot be passed on as a result of another change, to make the repairs would put us even further in the hole.)"

So they are saying they are just going to let their building go. They do not have any choice on this because of the rules set by the government. They simply will not be able to keep up that building and to make the capital expenditures that are required because of the government's rules, and the tenants will suffer. Their quality of life will suffer.

They say, "The investment climate will suffer. This will be blamed on the government which brought in the new rules.

"The rate of starts" -- and do not blame this on the federal government. This is a problem created by this government -- "of new apartment buildings will suffer. This will also be blamed on the government which brought in the new rules. Will tenants be able to find accommodation?" I would like to know where they are going to find accommodation unless the government is going to build them, and if it is going to build them, where it is going to find the money to do it. Probably they are going to raise the taxes.

They say: "We believe there are two main things the government must do to prevent such problems from developing: Don't rescind orders that have already been issued. Make sure that the rules continue to provide for relief from financial loss in some way or another.

"By rescinding orders that have already been issued, the government will send signals to investors, tenants and the population at large that it respects neither the equitable application of rules nor the democratic system of effecting rule changes. And it will send a signal that all orders made under the old rules after a certain arbitrary date are bad orders. Neither of these signals are ones which the new government will want to give, we are sure."

Again, I hope the member for Niagara Falls will comment on that.

I would also like to refer to a submission that was made to us by Minto Developments Inc on 14 February of this year, which is a well-established landlord. They deal specifically with the implication of the retroactive legislation. It is very brief, but I think it explains what their position is.

"Perhaps the most significant and destructive element of Bill 4 is its retroactive feature. This brings into question the fundamental fairness and justice in the government process. Society's progress is advanced greatly by stability, trust and cohesiveness. Conversely, any breakdown in these elements can have a severely retardant effect on creativity and development. One of the great struggles in developing nations is the creation of a stable platform of government policies and regulations, and the even-handed, fair, consistent application of the rule of law. The absence of these elements makes everyone risk-averse and stultifies development. The enactment of retroactive legislation, in addition to its specifically harmful impact on individuals and companies, also has the effect of fracturing the trust between private-sector enterprise and government. This breakdown can have devastating effects, not simply within real estate but throughout all industry. This runs completely contrary to the Premier's stated goal of working with private enterprise.

"It signals professionals, entrepreneurs, investors and financiers that added caution must be exercised in Ontario. Additional care and time must be taken to address the risk of legislative changes which would make a wise investment taken now turn sour in the face of retroactive government action. It tells local residents and foreign investors alike to be extremely wary."

I would like the member for Niagara Falls to comment on that with respect to investment. If you had a substantial amount of funds to invest in the private enterprise of housing in this province, and knowing that you have a government that literally changes the rules that people have relied on, would you invest in the province of Ontario? Would you take your funds and trust this government, a government that has changed the rules and has caused bankruptcy and people to lose not only their buildings but their own homes, small landlords and large landlords alike, that has caused considerable unemployment and that has caused a lack of trust by the financial institutions across this province, across this country and throughout the world? I ask that question of you: If you had those funds, would you invest them in housing in this province, knowing that your government will change the rules?

Sherwood Realty Group Inc made some comments with respect to retroactivity, and these were made to us in February. I would like to emphasize a few comments that were made to the committee with respect to that submission. That specifically was made by a Robert G. Lowe of this realty company, Sherwood Realty Group.

"The NDP government, after being asked politely to consider the effects of its proposed legislation at the annual meeting of the Fair Rental Policy Organization on November 22, 1990, has disregarded all reasonable requests for understanding, and gone ahead with regressive retroactive legislation. How could I have met the desires of the tenants and not been penalized for it? Is the government prepared to buy this property? How do I solve an immediate cash-flow problem? Where in a democracy is a government permitted to selectively crucify taxpaying employers because they took calculated risks, proceeded following the law, and then are arbitrarily singled out because the date of next rent increase coincidentally falls on the date that a new government took over the reins of this province?"

1650

I mean, what a nice thing -- "Well, we took power 1 October, that is the effective date we are there, so we will make it 1 October."

"As a result of this legislation, I will no longer be able to meet the requests of my tenants. More importantly, I have created unemployment for many people at Camco where the appliances were made, at Columbia Windows, where the windows were manufactured, and at the apartment project where the janitor, handyman, electrician and painter are employed. These tenants have difficulty understanding that they did a great job, and even though they are willing to pay for the improvements, that I cannot take it.

"I have felt the ramifications of this legislation in another way. I am a registered real estate broker that specializes in the marketing of apartment buildings. I have learned to operate within a complex, regulated sector, and have invested eight years advising people about the rent review system as they sold their apartment buildings. In many cases, these vendors were the original builders who suddenly found that their buildings were under rent control in 1975 and have operated within the system over the past 15 years. As they elected to retire from the role of landlord, our task was to find investors to take on the financial commitment and management headaches following the rent review system, that regulated their property ownership, they at the very least knowingly chose to make their purchase decision based on the understanding of the rent review system. As a result of the NDP election and the proposed Bill 4, less than 15 apartment buildings have been sold in the province since the election." That's an astounding figure, an astounding figure. "That has forced a decision to lay off all of my staff, some of which have worked for me for over eight years. We had anticipated a downturn of the market and the impact of the GST, since we have been in similar markets in 1982 and 1985, and set aside some resources to carry us through the slowdown; however, no one predicted such retroactive and regressive legislation that literally stopped the market for the past five months."

Now that is the argument that this government has decided. It said all landlords are rich, all of them have been hoarding money instead of setting aside reserves to pay for all of these things, and therefore they have the bucks to do it. Well, here is an individual who says yes, he has set aside funds, but for certain things and not the anticipated rules that the government has chosen to break.

Mr Lowe continues by saying:

"As a family man, and a small businessman formerly employing nine people, it was not easy to tell these employees that due to the announced changes in the rent control legislation, that I would no longer require their services. How does my office administrator, who realized her dream to own her own house on 20 December 1990 pay for it now that she is out of work? Even closer to home, how would you like to explain to my wife and two boys what happened to Dad's business and that we could lose our home as a result of being caught in the social agenda of a new government?"

So I ask members when they are considering this amendment -- and I hope members vote for it, I hope they change their minds from what they did on the committee and I hope they vote for it -- to realize the implication it has had to the average person in this province.

"The implications of this legislation are far more extensive than capital improvement suppliers. Banks, trust companies and insurance companies have placed mortgages on apartment complexes only to discover that now many of their loans are in excess of the legislated lending criteria. They will, most certainly, be forced to call what were perfectly safe, performing loans, and some unsuspecting property owners will be faced with some onerous decisions to either raise capital quickly, or lose their building. What benefit is that to the tenants in this building? If the landlord loses his building will a property manager hired by the lender really care about the tenants?

"But what about the people involved? How can the government selectively 'help' tenants (both rich and poor) at the expense of law-abiding property owners that the government has bankrupted? Many former landlords have retired and they, or their widows and family, depend upon the income from the vendor-assisted mortgages given to assist in the sale of their former apartment building. Now that the future rents are insufficient to make increasing mortgage payments, they must obtain possession under power of sale or foreclosure...only to discover that they will lose what little equity they have, if they do not bring an institutional mortgage current or have to sell in a severely depressed market. The fear of the NDP government and this legislation have induced a minimum price reduction of 25%. For a government that says it is out to help the little guy, I am flabbergasted that you can so blatantly abuse the rights of certain segments in society." That is what I want the government to think about, how it is simply abusing the rights of many, many people in this province.

"The government does not have the right in a democracy to arbitrarily and retroactively bankrupt law-abiding individuals simply because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time." Is that really the government's answer to the people of this province, 'Tough, you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time'? Some answer.

"You cannot paint a pinstripe with a household paint brush! If the system that was created as a compromise between tenants and landlords is not effective, fix the problem areas, not create chaos. If the government desire is to assist low-income people, slapping a moratorium on all tenants benefits those at higher incomes more than those at lower incomes. Furthermore many areas of this province have become a free market, rents that are legally available cannot be achieved in those markets. Why create difficulty in those markets when they are operating efficiently?

"The bottom line is this: If new legislation is required, set an effective date somewhat in the future, allow phase-ins, and allow capital expenditures that have been completed to be passed through since the tenants have the benefit and the property owners have the commitment for the funds borrowed, and disallow any financial loss pass-through since 1 October 1990. All available data indicates that virtually no sales have been completed since the 6 September 1990 election. This would be fair and effective interim legislation and allow sufficient time for permanent legislation to be prepared, vetted and passed. There would be a maximum limit of rent increases in any one year during this moratorium so that unconscionable increases would be halted. Does this solution have any merit?"

Those are the thoughts of the Sherwood Realty Group on retroactivity and the devastating effect it is having not only for the owners of that firm but also the people employed and their families. I hope that the member for Niagara Falls and other members of the government will take that into consideration when voting for this amendment.

There is one further letter from a Rocco Candelora -- this was January 1991 -- which was filed with the committee in February. It is a very short letter but it talks about how the Minister of Housing has stood up many times and said, "You know, there are all kinds of landlords abusing the system and that's what this legislation is for, to stop the landlords from abusing the system." This is Mr Candelora's response to that, and this is a letter to the committee.

"For the first time in my life I am compelled to write to a member of Parliament to express my deep concerns regarding an impending piece of legislation -- the NDP newly proposed rent control legislation. While I am in no way opposed to fair rent control I feel this bill unfairly creates financial burdens which the average concerned landlord does not deserve.

"As a landlord, I have previously dealt with the past government's guidelines regarding rent increases. Building repair and improvements of which the tenants approved were done to some of the buildings and the rental increases were approved over a phase-in period." That is specifically one of the items which this amendment deals with.

"Should you bring in the legislation retroactively as of 1 October 1990, as you have proposed, the increases I was promised in good faith will no longer be allowed, thereby creating somewhat of a financial burden to me as an owner. I am not asking for greater increases in rent but rather only what has been promised by the past government" -- by the government of the province of Ontario. "I am not, nor have I ever been, a 'slum' landlord, allowing a building to fall into disrepair, then doing expensive, excessive improvements and gouging my tenants. However, even the minimum repairs to buildings are expensive now, and combined with using taxes and utility costs, the financial burden cannot be left solely to the landlord to personally absorb any cost in excess of your proposed per cent."

1700

Of course, the government says: "Landlords, that's your problem. You can solve all these things."

Mr Candelora concludes by saying:

"I urge you as my representative to review the proposed legislation. Consider the fairness and honesty of cancelling 'contracts' regarding the phasing in of past increases. Find a solution to the difficult problem of finding funds for costly repairs. I do not ask you to drop rent control nor abandon the tenants' rights. I only ask that landlord rights and financial burdens also be considered. The majority of us are not 'bad guys.'"

I think that is the impression the government has been leaving with this Legislature.

The final statement that I would like to refer to is with respect to an M. A. Franchina. It was made to us in Ottawa. She is an individual who has a family. Her son just recently joined the workforce, her daughter is currently attending university. She calls them "a normal family," but certainly not one of the wealthy landlords that this government has referred to. She says that she and her husband are of retiring age and she planned to retire sooner but this has not been possible.

Her plan was to invest their savings into a facility that would supplement her superannuation and keep them both occupied. Her husband has no pension plan. So they investigated the housing market and they researched it and they found what they were looking for. They found a small three-storey building containing 14 units. She says that this building was of the Victorian era and it was still in its original state. I would like to read just in concluding what she says about that building:

"The apartments ranged from 1,000 square feet to 1,500 square feet and of the size of a conventional three-bedroom house. Each had a separate dining room with a bay window, hardwood floors, oak doors and woodwork and a fireplace in the living room. The apartments were quite spacious and bright. To say the least, we were impressed.

"The one major drawback was the rents. They ranged from $257.75 per month for a one-bedroom to $460 for a three-bedroom. This rent included, among other things, the heat, hot water and free laundry facilities. These rents were well below one half the average rent for similar accommodation in the same neighbourhood. The building had been owned by an 88-year-old lady who obviously did not increase rents yearly."

That scenario was revealed to us many, many times throughout our hearings across this province, so this is typical of the situation that exists today.

Ms Franchina states: "This one major drawback, we realized, would adjust itself under the existing rent review legislation. We made our decision to buy and had a good feeling that in the future some returns would be forthcoming, as with most investments, or at the very least the building would at some point in time become self-sufficient financially and we would have some equity to pass on to our children. Under Bill 4 and rent control, this may never happen.

"We purchased the apartment building, and being serious and conservative-minded individuals, we invested our complete life savings of $350,000 to keep the mortgage payments to a minimum. Even with this sizeable down payment, our financial loss for the first year was in excess of $17,000....

"In June of 1990, acting in good faith, we made significant, necessary improvements to the building amounting to $25,000. We played by the rules. We made application under the existing legislation to the rent review commission for a rental increase based on the cost of improvements and financial loss. We were rewarded a 13.9% increase for the first year commencing 1 October 1990 and phase-in increases of 5% over a period of four years."

She emphasizes that:

"If the proposed bill becomes law and is implemented, with a mere stroke of the pen the increases will be wiped away, even though the improvements were made and the money spent, all done legally through the proper procedure under the existing legislation. But the worst part of the scenario is that my husband and I, through no fault of our own, may lose our life savings."

Of course, the government will say: "Well, tough luck. You made a bad investment. You should have anticipated that we would change the rules. Tough luck."

She says, "I'm quite sure that Mr Cooke would not like to go down in history as the Ontario minister who in 1991 designed and implemented legislation that put many, many small landlords like me into bankruptcy."

I put that burden on the shoulders of the member for Niagara Falls as well. Is that going to be the legacy of the Minister of Housing and his parliamentary assistant in this government? Is that going to be their legacy? I hope they answer that question, because that is a serious question.

"Let me remind you that the rents charged in this building are below one half the average rents charged for units of a similar size. Our tenants are mostly young professionals with highly disposable incomes and certainly not in dire need of subsidization. Among the 14 tenants, I inherited two lawyers, two doctors, a parliamentary librarian, an individual who owns an import-export business, a buyer for ladies' fashions, several public servants and a retired Canadian National official who owns his own apartment buildings elsewhere but who prefers to live in this building because, to quote him, 'It's cheaper.' Is Bill 4 and rent control designed to help these people?"

Is that what the member for Niagara Falls intends to do? Is that who she is trying to help? Because that is what she is doing.

These were remarks that were made to us by Ms Franchina, and she finally concluded, for she is from the Ottawa area, by stating:

"Unlike Toronto, the majority of landlords in Ottawa are like us, full-time workers and part-time landlords, just trying desperately to make ends meet. Why should we, law-abiding citizens, be treated with such disrespect and ultimately penalized retroactively? It makes no sense.

"If Bill 4 and later rent control is implemented, I do not know what we will do. We could sell, but who would want to buy?"

Is it sounding familiar? This is the pattern we have heard throughout all of these hearings. What are they going to do? Are they going to sell? Who is going to buy? Anybody would be a fool to buy housing left in this condition by this government. No investor would take such a risk. Of course there is always the philosophy of the government to let the value of buildings go down so low that it will buy those buildings. I have heard that theory over on this side.

"I am not sure what the solution is, but I am sure the solution is not Bill 4 or rent controls. They did not work in British Columbia, they did not work in Alberta and they did not work in New York City. What makes the government think they will work in Ontario? The historic ramifications in those centres were incalculable.

"Let's look at alternatives, perhaps legislation by regions, addressing each region on its own merit. There must be alternatives which would be fairer to landlords too."

I think that is a type of comment that is being asked across this province: "Let's have legislation that is fair to everybody. Let's not cause the bankruptcies and the loss of employment that is being caused by this government."

1710

One of the most startling stories we have heard came from a Steven Draves. I think this is the last one I am going to refer to, and I would like to tell his story because I think it is the one that perhaps affected me. He is a landlord in Matheson, and he proceeded to renovate an eight-unit apartment building in April of last year. He told us that he was now in a financial bind because of the retroactive nature of this legislation. He is 27 years old. He is a licensed general carpenter, he is an apprenticed electrician. He only got married in June of last year, and he and his wife have been living apart and will be living apart until the renovations of the apartment building are finished. He has received all his building experience from his grandfather, who just turned 74 years old.

He describes the building as being a stable in the day of his great-grandfather. "Somewhere around the 1940s my grandfather began building apartments in this stable. Over the duration of several years, the building eventually ended up with eight apartments and an area my grandfather used as an office for his construction business. My grandfather also built a house next to the apartments for his family of six to live in. This building was a way for my grandfather to do something he knew how to do and provide a little extra income for his family."

Mr Draves says he entered into an agreement with his grandfather to purchase the apartment building and the house next door in January of 1989. "The reason my grandfather wanted to sell the building to me was that he saw a way for me to take what I had learned and turn this building into something that would benefit my wife and I in the future. The construction in the building was outdated and needed to be upgraded. My grandfather and myself searched for the best way to complete this task and discovered a grant called low-rise rehabilitation."

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Chair: While I find the information that the honourable member is relaying quite interesting, it is my understanding that the standing rules expressly prohibit an individual or a member of this House from reading extensively from written text. The member has been going on for quite some time now in reading from text, and he keeps flipping back and forth and in the same text and reading from one page and another and so on. That is my point. I believe he has read extensively from that text and I think he should cease, and if he has a point to make he should make it.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you. I have listened very carefully. I will ask the member to continue.

Mr Tilson: It is regrettable that the government members would take the position they have on these things. These are concerns put by the people of this province, and I have every right to tell members, and hopefully members will listen to these concerns. Hopefully members' minds are not closed.

Hon Mr Allen: You should paraphrase it in your own words.

Mr Tilson: I will paraphrase in my own words, and I think the member should be listening to these concerns, because obviously the committee did not.

"My grandfather and I realized that in order to do all the work that was demanded of myself, I would have to raise the rents of the apartments. My desire was to have the rents of the one bedroom apartments all the same, and the same idea with the two and three bedroom apartments. I talked with rent review and I was told that if I wished to raise my rents due to capital expenditures that I would have to borrow the money, do the renovations, and then apply for the rent increases. If the rent increases were allowed, I would have to wait 90 days before they would be approved. I followed their instruction as closely as I was able and when I started to renovate, it was possible to spend the money, do the work, raise that rents so that I would at least be able to pay the mortgage and expenses for the building."

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Chair: I made a point of order a little while ago about his reading from written text, and he has gone on at quite some length reading from the same text. You have ruled on it. Could you cite the rule that you are standing by your decision to allow him to continue, please?

Mr Bradley: Are you challenging the Chair? Then we have to put it to a vote.

Mr Perruzza: I am not challenging the Chair. I am just asking her for the rule she is quoting.

The First Deputy Chair: Thank you for your opinion. The member may continue.

Mr Tilson: Mr Draves said:

"I do not believe that this was mismanagement and I find it hard to believe that you might as well.

"The renovations that I was forced to do involved upgrading the roof...replacing all the exterior door and windows...replacing all the entrance doors inside the apartment...specific upgrades to the foundation...replacing all the electrical wiring and bringing the wiring up to code...installing fire code drywall between the apartments and in storage areas...."

The motive for the upgrades was to extend the life of the building for 15 years. Of course, with this legislation it would just sit there. I continue with Mr Draves's statement:

"We had to open many walls so I made the decision to replace all the plumbing in the building because of how old it was and the way it was installed. This also involved new sinks, toilets, tubs and showers."

Again, the members over there would probably just let it lie, because they know perfectly well that with their legislation this will never happen.

"I also installed some new kitchen cabinets and replaced as much of the wood chips that were used for insulation with fibreglass insulation. The brick chimneys were removed and replaced with B-vent to reduce fire risk."

Of course, the members over there would probably allow the building to remain unsafe.

"Almost all of the flooring was destroyed in the renovations (and not from neglect) so much of it had to be replaced and of course we had to repaint all of the apartments. Also we changed the layout of most apartments to increase storage and reduce wasted space.

"I think that it is imperative that you understand that I took every measure to keep spending to minimum. We reused as much of the old building materials that we could."

So these are not the flashy landlords the members over there talk about. This is an average guy like them or me, trying to develop good housing for the tenants in this province.

He continues by saying:

"Anything that we could not use, but still might be of use to someone, I gave away. I established accounts with distributors of building materials so as to decrease my cost of construction and watched flyers for sales in case a better deal could be found elsewhere on any items I would require. I always shopped around for the best price for a good to excellent quality. I hired one employee through the Futures program and had his wage paid for by the government for 26 weeks. This worker was also an unemployed tenant. I hired a second employee who was also an unemployed tenant. I hired two of my brothers to work with me, and another brother, both my parents and my wife helped me a lot on weekends and holidays. My mother went to the hospital with pleurisy and pneumonia aggravated by painting with enamel paint. I did not pay myself during the renovations, and had to take a contract to do some work at a job site where five houses were being built. Between the income from the contract and my wife's income, my wife and I were able to survive and I was able to go on with the work. During the renovations I lived with my grandparents and my wife lived with her parents in North Bay. This kept our living expenses to a minimum.

"Previously if everything went well and I was able to collect all my rent, I could possibly realize a profit of $6,351."

That is all the profit he was anticipating.

"I was willing to accept less profit per year for the apartments in order to do the renovations, but I have to raise the rents. A one-bedroom apartment would rent for $225, a two-bedroom apartment for $275 and a three-bedroom apartment for $325 per apartment, and the tenants would be responsible for hydro, natural gas, water, telephone and cable. I believe that these rents are better than any subsidized rentals that a government could provide.

"My tenants are comfortable with the rents that I proposed."

Again, that is specifically what this amendment by the Liberal critic is proposing.

He continues by saying:

"I have done these upgrades and repairs for much less than it would have cost anyone else to do."

So this was not a frivolous landlord. He was trying to save and members of his family were trying to save to put forward the best accommodation for his tenants.

He continues by saying:

"I do not believe that the renovations were excessive or unnecessary, but I do believe that I was trying to extend the life expectancy of this building by 15 to 25 years. If I did not do these renovations, this small town would lose eight apartments, because the building in question is at the end of its lifespan and my grandfather never budgeted for an overhaul of the building nor does he wish to at the age of 74. If he had, the tenants would not have enjoyed such low rents for as long as they did. Currently there is one apartment with a legal rent of $52.84 for a two-bedroom apartment, as of January 1, 1991."

Is that one of the high, gouging rents the member for Niagara Falls is referring to?

1720

He continues by saying:

"This woman makes more money than I do and yet I am forced to subsidize her rent. I could have chosen to be a slum landlord and ignored all of the problems in the building. I suppose that I should have because if I had done nothing to the building, I would not be in a financial bind.

"By taking the initiative that I did, I extended that life of a building that is at the end of its life span, I directly created at least four jobs, as well as using much materials that would indirectly keep people employed. This was an investment that I was hoping would provide me with security as I get older, not make me rich in a few short years.

"I have never seen such a display of pure ignorance as this government has shown to hard-working, honest landlords. I followed the rules in regards to rent increases and was trying to give the people of this building a better place to live while at the same time being able to pay the bills. The government changed the rules, without any fair warning, and also made the legislation retroactive. If the government's concern is to provide affordable rental units to the voters of this province, then I am at a loss to understand why they are destroying landlords who, to me, are their allies. I realize that there are landlords that do take advantage of tenants, but don't kid yourself, there are tenants who take advantage of landlords as well. This new legislation sides only with the tenants and does nothing for any landlords. I met with the Minister of Housing, Dave Cooke, in Toronto and he explained to me that his government was not going to allow landlords to gouge tenants with rent increases for unnecessary renovations. I believe that this is a problem that is mostly restricted to the large centres of southern Ontario. This is just another example of how we in northern Ontario have to suffer through rules and regulations that really should not apply to us."

That is the problem with this legislation: it has not been thought out. The government is busily going on its way, having these green paper discussions throughout the province which are an absolute joke. It appears the minister hears some of them and not others, and he certainly is not allowing to hear representations from individuals. Some of the meetings are secret. It is some consultative process.

Mr Draves goes on by saying:

"I would also like to point out that 5% of $52.84 is $2.64" -- that is going to be his increase, $2.64 "whereas 5% of $850 is $42.50. All of my expenses have gone up more than 10% in the last two years for each year.

"I believe that this government assumes that all landlords are evil and are gouging tenants, and I am here to tell you that this is fundamentally incorrect. Hard-working landlords like myself help to provide affordable housing for this province. This proposed legislation is already harming small landlords and if this continues, affordable housing will dwindle quickly. Small landlords are being forced to bear the brunt of this legislation, which is completely inappropriate and unfair. Controls may be required to manage the activity of large landlords in major urban centres, but the same controls cannot apply to smaller landlords in smaller rural areas."

He concludes by saying -- and I hope the member up there has listened:

"I hope that I have given you a better understanding of the situation that faces me. I now am not able to get a mortgage on the building and I am not able to raise my rents. I have spent much money and now I am having extreme difficulty figuring out any way to repay the money I borrowed. Time is not on my side."

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I want to make a few more comments after having heard some input from the other members. I am surprised at the statements of the parliamentary assistant because I have heard the parliamentary assistant state that this bill does indeed place hardships on both sides of the partnerships, whether that be tenant or landlord. That statement was made by the parliamentary assistant during our hearings.

As I have said before, and I want to reiterate, this bill, and particularly its retroactivity clause, does not accomplish what this bill sets out to do, and that is to ensure a supply of good, affordable housing for tenants in Ontario.

As my colleague the honourable member from Eglinton has stated, retroactivity on a matter of medical care cannot be tolerated by NDP members of this House -- it was rejected as late as last Thursday -- but retroactivity on a housing issue with very, very uncertain repercussions is acceptable. Retroactivity on investment on a right of supply sends out negative, negative messages and has been accepted even with all the pleas that have been heard in the hearings and from members in this House.

So I ask, where do we go from here? What kind of dependency can we have on this government which one day accepts retroactivity on one issue, and another day on an issue which could be more meaningful for many people in Ontario rejects retroactivity? I find that there is a total lack of consideration that many of the people affected by Bill 4 are people who indeed are tenants themselves. They are small landlords who have their own homes within part of the dwelling that they share with another family and are thus classified as "landlord" but, in effect, they are "landlord-tenants."

I would like to quote from one of the people in Ottawa who presented to us:

"Another negative and unfair aspect of this bill is its retroactivity. Neither this government nor any legislative body should ever be empowered to act retroactively. This is probably the most unfair aspect of the bill. Many honest, law-abiding landlords, both large and small, made decisions under the rules and regulations that were in place. They carried out much-needed improvements, often with the support of their tenants, knowing that the income to pay for them would come through rent increases. Their banker advanced the loans knowing that funds would be available. The retroactivity has put many landlords into financial hardship. They committed themselves openly and in trust and now they must pay dearly for it.

"The NDP's dictionary must show landlords as meaning 'rich,' and this is far from the truth. Statistics show that 90% of landlords are momma and poppa operations with less than six units."

I think that is a conservative figure.

My in-basket continues to fill every day with letters about the retroactivity and its growing effects. I have everything from very, very modest handwritten notes to hardcovered books on this item that have been presented to me to show how retrograde, how unprogressive, how just inefficient this whole part of the bill is.

People in this province have spoken, and they are continuing to speak. People beyond this province, as the minister and the parliamentary assistant know, people as far away as the Pacific Rim countries, came to our committee to say how their lack of confidence has been put in place and their trust has been shaken.

We have a fundamentally unfair method of applying legislation, retroactivity being a fundamental part of the very first housing bill presented by this new NDP government. I reject the inability of this government to move on what would be a very, very helpful amendment presented by my party.

1730

Ms Harrington: I wanted to respond to some of the questions directed towards me by the member for Dufferin-Peel. Unfortunately, I did not bring my stack of letters because I could read some very moving testimony to the member that he may want to hear also.

The member asked several questions. I believe one of the first was that this government does not listen to all the people of Ontario. That is a very broad statement. That is something that is very important to this government and I would like to respond to that.

From my experience on a council, a city council, which is one aspect of politics, I have found that certain segments of our population are listened to by politicians and have very easy access to politicians and decision-making. From my experience I have found that, for instance, industry leaders, developers, tourist operators, downtown merchants all know exactly whom to call and how to get on the city council agenda and probably even how to contact Queen's Park. Probably this has always been the way, probably during the last 42 years of Tory rule in this province. I would like to say that things are changing. I believe I listen to all those people in Niagara Falls and bring their concerns here, but I also listen to those who are unemployed, single mothers, those who have not had a voice previously, who have not been heard, even those who cannot find housing.

Second, the question was raised about the quality of life that tenants will be suffering because of the NDP coming into power. Previously I did mention to members the concerns of the one piece of paper I did bring with me today, and that was the woman from Kitchener whom I had been talking to very recently. She was telling me of the situation there. I just wanted to point out to members that in various ways, whether it was her elevator service in that building, the water service, the pool which was filled with garbage and mud or the lack of security so that people were loitering in the building, I would like to tell members that tenants are suffering in all these ways.

Now the very important question that the member did ask me was, what is the message that this government wants to give to this province of Ontario, what is the legacy that we want for this province? I would like to address that. The Ministry of Housing, over the last few years, has had many programs, very divergent programs, that are all aimed to try to help various segments of this province. What I would like to have as a legacy from our government in the housing field is a co-ordinated approach to housing, and we are trying to do that. We are just beginning to piece together all the different types of programs, see how they integrate together. For instance, as members know and as we raised in the House earlier this afternoon, the minister talked about the non-profit units and the community-based units, like co-ops, that this government is now going to be building and supporting across this province, 30,000 units. People ask me, "Is this government going to turn on and off the tap, as previous governments have, with regard to housing, as our federal government is doing?" and I am saying no, we are making a commitment, knowing that this type of housing is needed.

I would like to also look at the bigger picture. The member mentioned Ontario Housing Corp. That is part of the picture of housing in Ontario that we are responsible for, and we are trying to improve that type of housing, have the people there have an input into the management and how those buildings operate, to make the quality of their life better. I would also submit that we are involved in home building, trying to get more affordable-type homes built. We are involved with municipalities, with the provincial housing policy statement that came out about a year or more ago, trying to get different types of affordable homes built.

We want zoning and bylaws to allow basement apartments, so that these large homes that we have in Ontario can be utilized more fully. Instead of, say, one older person living in a huge home, more people can be living there. Some of the zoning is from the 1950s, if members remember back that far, the Ozzie and Harriet syndrome, with nice little subdivisions, nice little homes. Those were the only kinds of homes that could be built. We are trying to change that so that we have inclusion of everyone into the housing market in Ontario. We want to encourage diversity of development. We want builders to be involved.

Last, I want to discuss the private rental market, which is what my colleague has questioned me about. Let me just say off the top that there is no way, obviously, that this government could or should buy out the huge private rental market in this province. This is something that is very important to the landlords and the tenants of this province. The private rental market has to supply the majority of housing in this province. We realize that. I would like to tell members that we need a healthy market, and so we believe that, working with landlords and tenants, we can develop a system that will give landlords a fair investment and that will give tenants real protection.

Obviously the only way we can prove that to the opposition, to anyone in this province, to ourselves, is to be very serious and work towards this over the next four years. That is the legacy we want to leave Ontario. The only way it can be proved whether we can accomplish this, as the member is saying, is in the next election. It is going to be four years, and that is where we are going. We want a fair system, a good system, a system that works.

I would just like to end by saying that the many people who did vote in September voted in good faith. They voted in good faith for change in the system of the RRRA, and that is what we are doing.

Mr Mancini: We have gone through a process to arrive at the point where we are today in the Legislature.

Mr Bradley: Is this on Algonquin park?

Mr Mancini: No, they are going to allow hunting and fishing and shooting and row boats and speed boats and lumbering and all kinds of things in Algonquin park, but we will save that for another day.

We have gone through a process to arrive at the point where we are today; not a process that the opposition party and hundreds and possibly thousands of people across Ontario have been happy with, but none the less, we went through a process. We and thousands of people across the province have tried to explain to the government in a clear and concise way why retroactivity is bad. As a matter of fact, while we had delegation after delegation of small landlords appear before us, most of them in tears by the time they finished making their presentation, we heard from the parliamentary secretary at the time, and she stated on more than one occasion, that the government members, and herself in particular, were there to listen. They were there to listen to the individuals who were allowed to speak.

I should add at this point that more people were not allowed to speak than in fact were allowed to speak. That is a first in the history of Ontario politics, where a committee of the Legislature denied more organizations, individuals and groups, more in number the right to speak than in fact the number that did speak. And they did it without, in my view, any regret, which in fact surprised me.

1740

But getting back to the point, we heard day after day, time after time from the parliamentary secretary that in fact she wanted to help them. She used those words over and over. She was happy that they came before the committee -- and I am talking about the small landlords in particular, the ones who are facing imminent bankruptcy -- and she said she wanted to help them, she would consider what they had to say. It appears that she has heard very little of what they had to say, because the government refuses to move on the matter of retroactivity.

What are we asking the government to move on? Are we asking the government not to prevent large rental increases? No, we are not asking the government to do that. We have offered to help the government do that. Have we asked the government to in fact stop a review of all the programs that the parliamentary secretary talked about earlier on? No, we have not asked the government to do that. Have we asked the government to in any way take away rights from tenants? No, we have told the government we are interested in helping the government ensure that the tenants have the rights that they need and deserve. We have said all of these things.

What we have asked the government to do is not to make illegal an action of a landlord that was legal at the time. That is not right. It is not right that individuals in this province follow the law, follow the letter of the law, go before tribunals of the government, get decisions according to the law, invest thousands of dollars, invest their families' life savings, years and years of effort and work, and then have a government which has been swept into office which said --

An hon member: By accident.

Mr Mancini: Yes, they were swept into office by accident, but we remember what they said. They said they were going to have standards in government that were higher than any previous government. That is what they said.

What do these standards include today? They include making illegal what was legal before, entrapping Ontario's citizens and forcing them into situations where they will lose their life's assets, their family assets, everything that they worked for, everything that they have saved, and for what reason? What did they do that was wrong?

What did these small landlords who appeared before our committee day after day, and as I said earlier, most of them finished in tears because they are on the brink of bankruptcy, what did they do that was wrong? What did they do that was illegal that they should merit such treatment from a government that said that its standards were going to be higher than any other standards before that we have seen in government in the Legislature or here in the province of Ontario?

I will tell members what they did that was wrong. They do not fit into some ideology or some make-believe world that the NDP believes exists out there. That is their mistake.

Do the people across the floor not understand what it means when you go to the bank and you borrow money and you sign your name and your assets and your family's name, your family's assets, to the bank note? Do they not know what it means that, before doing this, before going to the bank to in fact do this, every approval process was obtained?

Many of the landlords came before us and they said not only did they go to the government tribunals, not only did they follow the letter of the law, but they actually went to the tenants themselves. Does the parliamentary secretary remember that? Does she remember the small landlords who came before our committee and said to us, "We visited every tenant and we said to the tenants, 'Here is a list of capital works that we wish to undertake; please tell us if you agree with that list'"? She will remember that they told us, numerous of these landlords, that the tenants in fact signed off, and when individual tenants said they did not agree with particular capital works, they were taken off of the lists for their particular units? I remember that very clearly. I remember that.

So not only did they follow the letter of the law, but they went to the tenants and they said, "Help me as your landlord serve you, but while we're doing this, you must know that there's going to be a cost," and they knew what the cost was going to be. It is a sad day when landlord and tenant relations of such a nature are interrupted at will and without reason by the government.

The parliamentary secretary says to us today, "Well, there's 130,000 tenants who are going to face rental increases if we in fact do not move forward with the retroactivity." Then she announces to us that, I cannot remember the figure, tens of thousands of people in fact are going to face these increases. I cannot remember the figure that the parliamentary secretary says.

But what we have heard from that explanation is that the law is neither fish nor fowl. Some are going to go through, based on what principle? Some are not going to go through, based on what principle? On numbers alone? Is that the principle of law? Is that why we are going to make whatever was legal at the time illegal, because the number is 130,000, I say to the parliamentary secretary, or is there a logic? Is there reason in law? Is there any reason whatsoever that she can give to this House today, other than the 130,000, while at the same time justifying the increases that they have allowed?

We have neither fish nor fowl here. What we have is a struggling government desperately trying to pretend that it is keeping some promises while it knows the damage that it is wreaking. They know very well.

We heard from the trades that repair buildings. They came before us. Do members remember the glass manufacturer who had several hundred thousand dollars' worth of glass in the warehouse? Do they remember that he had received a phone call from the owner of a building who said, "Forget about the glass, we can't put it up because the NDP won't allow our capital costs to be passed through"? Do members recall what he said, that this was causing his company financial problems? It was going to affect his workforce, meaning people were going to be laid off. How many jobs are we going to steal because the NDP wants to make illegal what was legal last year? How many jobs are we going to steal in the renovation industry?

Mr Mammoliti: Talk to Brian.

Mr Mancini: The member understands building trades, and he knows that building trades depend on work. My colleague across the floor knows this. He in fact worked in part of that sector. If the small companies in the building trades do not have landlords calling them to repair the buildings, those people are going to be out of work. The government is stealing their jobs. It is that clear, it is that fundamental. They had better face up to the facts. They have put thousands of people out of work. Many of them came before our committee and told us what they are doing.

Do members remember the trade union leader who told us one day during our committee hearings that the renovation section of the construction industry was the only part of the construction industry that was not in recession -- the only part until the government introduced Bill 4 with its retroactivity. Do members remember what he told us after? My colleague across the floor will. He then told us about the steep rise in unemployment in the renovation industry, which is a large segment of the construction industry. I remember what that individual told us. I remember. People lost their jobs.

That is the bottom line. That is what retroactivity is doing. That is what Bill 4 is doing. It has nothing to do with protecting tenants who cannot pay the rent, because time after time the government was asked by my colleagues on the committee, "Is this bill going to help anyone who has affordability problems today?" The government's answer time after time was no, because it is doing nothing to help tenants, poor tenants, who cannot pay their rent. They have some kind of idea that if they introduce Bill 4, people will think that they somehow kept a promise that they made in the election and will forget everything else that is caused by Bill 4.

We know Bill 4 does not keep their election promise. We know that. It has been written about. It has been talked about. It has been commented on by everyone. What is more important is, when are they going to face up to the negatives of Bill 4? When are they going to face up to the fact that they have made illegal actions which were legal? What fairness is there in that?

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

1750

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

ROYAL ASSENT

Hon Mr Alexander: Pray be seated.

The Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed a certain bill to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: The following is the title of the bill to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

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

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 1757.