Hansard Transcript 1997-Oct-01 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Michael Gravelle (Port Arthur): I believe everyone in this House would have nothing but praise for the people who work for, promote and volunteer for amateur sports organizations across the province. Indeed every community in Ontario, including my home town of Thunder Bay, relies on those organizations to see that our young people have access to sports they love.

So it is disheartening to learn that the government is delaying providing the funds needed by these organizations to do their job and is asking these groups to go through extraordinary hoops before their funds for this year will be freed up. Indeed the protracted approval process created through this government's new and supposedly improved sports strategy is creating a mockery in terms of this government's call for accountability.

What we have six months into this fiscal year is a situation where only six of 55 provincial sports organizations, to our knowledge, have received their much-needed funds to support the programs our young people both need and expect.

One organization caught in the crossfire of this process is the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario, the main support agency for amateur hockey across the province, including the Thunder Bay Amateur Hockey Association. In fact, Lou Salatino, a Thunder Bay resident who serves as chairman of the HDCO, has told me that the government's demands and sheer bullheadedness are seriously hampering the ability of his umbrella organization to do the work they need to do to keep amateur hockey moving ahead in the province of Ontario.

Today I implore the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation to free up those funds so as not to further delay the implementation of so many vital programs. Minister, it's time to get out of the stands and on to the ice. Get the game under way.

MARY SILAJ

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): In these very difficult times, from time to time a person or occasion challenges us in a deep and personal way. The deaths of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana were events of this nature.

In our own lives we also happen upon people who have that same disturbing yet uplifting effect. They remind us of what is important in life. They tell us to stop and smell the roses, to get in touch with our spiritual side and to know that there is indeed a creator God who loves us very much.

Mary Silaj from Elliot Lake is just such a person. Mary is not well and will soon leave us. That will be a huge loss to her family, her friends and her community. Mary loves life, loves people and loves to teach and to read. She epitomizes the best in all of us. Mary continues to nurture the world through the lives of the men and women she taught as a teacher.

Mary often waxes philosophical, has a tremendous sense of humour and reads with an appetite. Just this morning, she likened her passing on to going to that library of all libraries, where every book will be at her call, as indeed will be many of her favourite authors.

Mary, we love you and appreciate every moment we are blessed with your presence. Our world is a better place because of you.

GUELPH HOSPITALS

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Last Thursday the people in the city of Guelph were celebrating because Minister Wilson came to our riding for a ground-breaking ceremony at Guelph General Hospital.

The Guelph General and St Joseph's Hospital and Home have served patients in Guelph and Wellington county for over 100 years, but in the past 20 years Guelph has been trying to streamline its hospital services. It has been a difficult task. We all knew restructuring was needed, but it was tough. To make matters worse, previous governments were unable to fund new hospital services for Guelph.

During the provincial campaign two years ago, I made a personal commitment to the citizens of Guelph to finally obtain the money that was needed to do the work. Last March, Minister Wilson announced the long-awaited funding of $67.7 million, and on Thursday construction finally began. It's going to result in the renovation of Guelph General Hospital to create a new acute care centre for our city. St Joseph's will become the rehab and long-term-care centre. Both hospitals are scheduled to open in the year 2000.

I am proud to stand today and acknowledge and commend the cooperation of the city, the county and both hospitals. In Guelph, we are going to deliver less waste, less duplication, better services and better-quality health care. Our government is spending an unprecedented $18.3 billion on health care. Guelph very much appreciates the wonderful investment made in our hospitals.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to share some excerpts of faxes and e-mails I've received over the course of the last 24 hours.

The first one is from Michèle Robichaud from Sudbury: "I don't want to" walk out. "I feel provoked into taking this action." This government wants to "meet their political promises on my back. Sorry. I've got wide shoulders but they're for my students whom I love and respect and for whose future I will be fighting...."

This one is from the teachers and staff of Pius XII elementary school. We all know, they say, that Bill 160 is about taking $1 billion plus from the educational funding and future of our children.

This one is from Brian Kirlin, a teacher with the York Catholic Teachers: "It is my hope that the opposition parties," together with all educating partners, "will succeed in backing this government off its tyrannical agenda, an agenda which will destroy the standards of education we have worked so hard to achieve."

This one is from Daniel Johnson, a teacher in the Nipissing riding: "Thank you for your efforts. Keep up the fight and remember we are with you out here as the unconsulted minority of the Nipissing riding."

This final one is from James Russell from Sydenham, Ontario. He asks at the very end a very, very important question: "Can you tell me why I can't e-mail any Conservative members of Queen's Park? All their e-mail addresses come up access denied."

This is the epitaph of this government: access denied.

1340

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): By now everyone will know that the government, faced with the united province of workers who were not about to accept Bill 136 being rammed down their throats, caved in. This is a major victory on the part of the labour movement and the people who support the labour movement in all our communities.

Unfortunately what did not play out as much in the media -- and it's understandable because it doesn't generate headlines as does the possibility of a province-wide strike -- but what played out behind the scenes was one of the most disrespectful, dishonourable, anti-democratic procedures we could ever have seen.

I want to express this through the position that Bruce Carpenter, president of the Provincial Federation of Ontario Firefighters, went through. Up until Monday, shortly after noon, like everyone else in this province, he didn't know if he would be out on strike or what the situation would be. From 3:30 Monday afternoon until 5 o'clock yesterday, the committee had the only opportunity to comment on the over 200 amendments that were in front of us on Bill 136. Yesterday afternoon he had to go through what I consider to be the indignity and the disrespect of not even being able to come to the table and comment on virtually a new labour law that affects the negotiation of his members. At 5 o'clock yesterday that discussion shut down and there was no further debate.

This is not democracy; this is tyranny.

MS COLUMBUS

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): I rise this afternoon to express my sincere congratulations to all those who helped in organizing a recent reception on board the Hapag-Lloyd Tours' newest cruise ship, the MS Columbus, for its inaugural call at Tobermory. I was very honoured to have been invited to represent my riding of Bruce at their special event.

The MS Columbus cost almost $120 million to construct, and it is the first of its kind to have been specifically designed and outfitted for cruising in the Great Lakes and travelling through the Welland lock system. The ship has 205 cabins, eight suites, and can hold up to 420 passengers. A crew of 169 is required to attend to all passenger needs. Measuring 472 feet long, the MS Columbus has the engine capacity to cruise at 18.5 knots.

In 1996, there were a total of 413,000 tourism jobs in this province, and tourists spent a total of $13.6 billion that year. The growth of the thriving industry is expected to triple by the year 2010.

Ontario must strive to become a world leader in this industry. While Canada's coastal provinces are already enjoying the rewards of offering their towns and cities as ports of call for cruise ships, Ontario has just begun to see the vast potential the Ontario cruise industry will provide.

Today, through the cooperation of regional development agencies and Hapag-Lloyd Tours, Ontarians, including those in my riding of Bruce, may begin to enjoy the added revenues they much need in tourism.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise today to bring to the House the Ombudsman's report on the case of Mr S, who had to travel to Toronto from his home in Ottawa for a high-tech visual assessment. Mr S was refused travel support by the Ministry of Health and sought the assistance of the Ombudsman when all other avenues had been exhausted. The real issue here is one that goes to the heart of our health care system. Excellent quality health care should be available to all Ontarians regardless of where they live in the province.

Today in the standing committee on the Ombudsman the Conservative majority refused to support the motion of my colleague the member for Kingston and The Islands that the Ministry of Health ensure that appropriate financial assistance be provided to applicants of the assistive devices program to offset the cost of their travel to the program-approved assessment centre where such assessments are necessary for the purpose of determining their eligibility under the program for high-technology visual aids.

It is disgraceful that a government which claims that there is only one taxpayer quibbles about whether the money for travel support comes from the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Community and Social Services. The bottom line is that there is inadequate access to health facilities in the first place, and then the patient suffers. Ontarians have said loud and clear that they will not accept a two-tier health care system.

Once again, the Ombudsman, the neutral party of last resort, has had to sound the alarm about the consequences of this government's tunnel vision and slash-and-burn fiscal policies. Once again, the report of the Ombudsman proves that Mike Harris just isn't listening.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This government has deliberately provoked a confrontation with Ontario's teachers, a confrontation that now threatens the education of students right across the province. In 90 days there will be new school boards setting up all over the province with no idea of how much money they will have to spend educating our children.

Parents are uncertain. They don't know whether their children's education will be disrupted in the next few weeks. They have no idea how many tax dollars are going to be invested in education across Ontario. This government has to release the exact figures for stabilized funding for each of the new school boards and make public the funding formula so that we will know exactly how much the government intends to spend educating our children starting in September 1998.

The government has indicated that it intends to cut $1 billion from our schools. Now the government is saying that perhaps $1 billion is not the target. This government needs to guarantee spending on education, that there will not be any further cuts on the education of our children and the quality of education for our students in Ontario. This government has to make clear that they're committed to good quality education, that they're not about setting up a crisis so that teachers will be forced out on strike, disrupting education in Ontario.

ROSH HASHANAH

Mrs Lillian Ross (Hamilton West): Tonight marks the beginning of an important holy day for members of the Jewish community in my riding and across the province. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year, marks a time for the children of Israel to reflect on their lives and the year ahead. While most Jewish holidays celebrate national events in Jewish history, Rosh Hashanah is much more personal in nature.

In Hebrew, Rosh Hashanah is one of the Yamim Nora'im, or Days of Awe, more commonly referred to in English as the High Holy Days. On this holy day, Jews are called to examine their lives during the preceding year. One powerful instrument used to motivate repentance during Rosh Hashanah is the shofar, a ram's horn, which is blown in synagogues on Rosh Hashanah. The great Jewish leader, Maimonides, describes the goal of the piercing cry of the shofar as "an allusion, as if to say: `Awake, O you sleepers. Awake from your sleep. O you slumberers, awake from your slumber. Search your deeds and turn in repentance.'"

Rabbis have long encouraged Jews to observe Rosh Hashanah in a spirit of optimism. For example, they ordain that honey be served at all Rosh Hashanah meals and that slices of apple be dipped into it. A special prayer is then recited: "May it be thy will, O Lord, our God, to grant us a year that is good and sweet."

I would like to extend to members of the Jewish community in my riding, particularly Adas Israel, Beth Jacob and Anshe Sholom synagogues, every blessing for this holy day. May the Lord grant that the year ahead be indeed good and sweet.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on administration of justice and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 155, An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Commemoration Week, the title of which is amended to read "An Act proclaiming Victims of Violent Crime Week."

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed. The bill is therefore ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMMITTE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on resources development and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Mr Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill 136, An Act to provide for the expeditious resolution of disputes during collective bargaining in certain sectors and to facilitate collective bargaining following restructuring in the public sector and to make certain amendments to the Employment Standards Act and the Pay Equity Act.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1350 to 1355.

The Speaker: All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

Doyle, Ed

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Fisher, Barbara

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Harnick, Charles

Harris, Michael D.

Hodgson, Chris

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

McLean, Allan K.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Snobelen, John

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

North, Peter

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 56; the nays are 38.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated September 17, 1997, the bill is ordered for third reading.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister without Portfolio [Seniors Issues]): It's with great pleasure that I rise in the House today on behalf of the government of Ontario to recognize International Day of Older Persons, which is celebrated at the beginning of Community Support Month in Ontario.

International Day of Older Persons is declared by the United Nations and is an opportunity each year to reflect on the contributions of older persons to our society. This is a day for recognition of the contributions Ontario's 1.4 million seniors have made and continue to make to the quality of life we enjoy today in Ontario. These people fought for our freedom, struggled through a depression, raised their children and families and laid the foundation of societal standards so coveted by the world today.

Seniors continue to play an integral part in our everyday lives. Through their caring and sharing, they touch the lives of their grandchildren, they volunteer with our youth, they provide leadership and time on committees, and they support those more frail and less fortunate than themselves.

In the next few months I will be meeting with Canada's ministers responsible for seniors to discuss issues of importance to seniors, their families and those who work with seniors. Among the topics we will address are agism, continuing care and intergenerational concerns, and how Canada and the provinces will mark 1999, designated by the United Nations as the International Year of Older Persons.

The Ontario Community Support Association represents more than 300 community-based, not-for-profit health and social service organizations which work daily with older persons and the less fortunate in our society.

Community Support Month is a time to especially thank those many volunteers and staff who work for those organizations which not only look after the elderly but also the disabled and those with special needs. Present in the Legislature today are Mr Scott Forfar, Ada Wong and Elizabeth Fulford, the president of the Ontario Community Support Association.

Throughout this month, I ask my colleagues on all sides of the House to take time to participate in the many community events which mark Meals on Wheels Week from October 5 to 11, Community Care Worker Week from October 13 to 19, and Friendly Visiting/Telephone Reassurance Day on October 29.

This government is committed to our elderly population and to enhancing community support programs for them. Since 1995, this government has increased funding for community-based long-term-care services by over $75.7 million. As of today, 42 of the 43 new community care access centres have been opened to provide one-stop shopping centres for the elderly and the disabled to access home care support programs and long-term-care services. By the end of this year, all of the province's community care access centres will be fully operational. Our seniors will finally be receiving the right care at the right time in the right place, with the right person providing those important services here in Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I am happy to rise and on behalf of the Liberal Party recognize International Day of Older Persons, and particularly glad to recognize some of the thrust to try and integrate seniors and others approaching senior age into society and the programs that do that. It's especially appropriate to recognize the community supports that are essential if seniors are to be respected in the way they absolutely deserve.

I'm sure that many of the people in this House will travel, as I have on other occasions, with the Meals on Wheels programs to see how important the contact is that the volunteers of those kinds of programs have with the seniors in society.

But I'm sure there's no one in this House who would like the remarking of this day to pass without reflecting on our responsibility and on this government's responsibility in particular in terms of how it's doing. If we are approaching a year like 1999 and the International Year of Older Persons, we really have to recognize how much greater the challenge has grown under the Harris government.

We look specifically at what has happened in terms of hospitals and health care. Last week every member of this House heard how the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce has verified that seniors, as disproportionate users of hospital services, have had $604 million worth of services taken away -- those seniors who have been subject to substandard services despite the best efforts of nurses, doctors and administrators, who have found themselves compelled in some cases to tie seniors to beds in hospitals because they simply can't provide the personal service that they want, to take away meals before seniors have had time to finish them, not because they want to, not even in some cases because they know about it, but because there simply aren't enough people to attend to seniors in the way basic, fundamental respect would require us to.

The seniors in this province are not bed-blockers sitting in chronic care beds. They are people deserving of respect, and not the characterization they received last week from the Minister of Health talking about chronic care beds.

Certainly, if there was essential respect underlying this government's efforts towards seniors, we would have seen something different happen in terms of drug copayments. Every member of this House realizes it took 81 days for this government to turn around even the aggravated injury. The idea of charging seniors once is bad enough. To have 25 years of a free drug program, one that most seniors have counted on, have planned for, have put into their retirement options, summarily taken away is bad enough. But then, on top of that, to have this government charge those seniors twice in the same year and to take 81 days and a significant amount of pressure from seniors' organizations and this caucus to make it change its mind and to finally give seniors four months worth of credit for next year gives us an idea of how lacking the government is in that fundamental respect.

We approach another signal mark for this government. How will it treat seniors with regard to rent control? Seniors out there stand to lose under the so-called Tenant Protection Act the very security that we associate with people of older years. The very security that they depend on and have been able to depend on with other governments, this government would take away. It would make possible the turning of apartment buildings into condominiums, into parking lots, to take away even those seniors who have no intention of moving and therefore losing, as everyone does, the rent control, and being at the mercy of the marketplace. Many, many seniors will be discombobulated by this change on the part of this government, as disproportionate users of rental accommodation in this province. This government certainly has to take note of that.

Home care has been talked about. Last year in the budget, this government spent $4 million less than the year before. It budgeted a large increase but didn't spend it. All of us have learned from our grandparents and our parents the essence of having actions match words. Unfortunately, when it comes to this government, seniors would do well to double and triple and quadruple check. We know from our own discussions in seniors' home and the active seniors who are part of our community that they are doing exactly that. They know there are 16,000 of them -- and other people who are disabled, but principally seniors -- on a waiting list for long-term-care beds. They know that home care hours have been cut back in many communities, that they've been red-circled by departmental initiatives, actually taking away some of their ability to stay in their own homes.

I say to this House that we cannot comment on older persons' day without recommitting ourselves to do better. If this government wants to have anything close to a passing report card --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Responses, third party.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I'm sure all members of the Legislature would want to join with the minister in recognition of the importance of the International Day of Older Persons and also pay tribute to the work that community support organizations do. I know in my own riding of Beaches-Woodbine, Senior Link is a vital part of our community that keeps our community healthy, that brings services to our seniors in their homes, that provides affordable housing for seniors who have moved out of their homes. The work of these organizations is critical to our sense of community and our sense of neighbourhood.

I suppose if the minister had stopped at those two points, we might have been able to spend more time in paying tribute to the contribution of seniors and the organizations that serve them and what it means to our community. But the minister goes on to say that this government is committed to the elder generation. He used the example of $75 million in community-based long-term-care services since 1995. I must say that it provokes in me a response to list a litany of just some of the things this government has undertaken as public policy and its effect on the seniors of our province.

Let me begin with the cancellation of the not-for-profit housing program. There is no new affordable housing for seniors, a growing seniors population, being built in the province of Ontario because of your direct action of getting out of the business altogether of building affordable housing; and the downloading of the existing social housing stock to municipalities at a time when they are under such strain and do not have the fiscal resources to be able to deal with this threatens the existing stock. We already see moves coming about where they are increasing the number of market rent apartments and less affordable apartments in those social housing, not-for-profit buildings exactly because of the government's action.

What about the removal of rent controls? What is that going to mean? Your policy of vacancy decontrol means that seniors on fixed incomes who are in rent-controlled apartments right now will become prisoners in those apartments, not able to move because they won't be able to afford the rents anywhere else. In those older buildings where there are only one or two seniors left in the building, there will be greater harassment to get them out of that building so that those rents can be jacked up or the building can be razed and turned into a condominium.

1410

Let's talk about other things that come from the downloading. What about the increase in user fees for library services and for recreational programs for seniors, from a government that said no new user fees? It said a user fee is a tax; no new taxes, no new user fees.

Of course, you couldn't not then comment on the biggest user fee of all on seniors, the user fee that's been put in place for the drug benefit program. All of the experts said that would cause some seniors to make a choice between having necessary drugs or not. That is a shameful move. None of the research was in place to support the kind of drug education program that's needed. I know of seniors who are so worried about their fixed incomes that they've stopped taking needed medication because of the cost you've put in place for them.

Let's talk about the hospital cuts that have gone on before the home care and long-term-care expansions in the community. Your own hospital restructuring commission has identified the expansion that's needed and you're not putting it into place. The report that came out last week showed how $600 million of hospital services have been cut to seniors and how you have, in your own admission today, only increased home care services by $75 million over the last two years out in the community.

Let me say on that -- you crow about that number a lot -- that is less than what was budgeted for in the fiscal plan in the three years out of the last provincial government, our government, that recognized the need to put the services in the community before you made the cuts to hospitals to ensure that seniors had the supports they needed to stay healthy in the community.

Let's talk about what you're doing with the Red Cross right now. I'm amazed to hear the minister today try and blame it on the official opposition party and the third party. Minister, we used to fund the pay equity costs. You're refusing to fund the pay equity costs. We supported the not-for-profits in the delivery of services. You've opened it up to wide-open competition and a feeding frenzy for the for-profit organizations who are going out there, who are skimming the most intensive markets and leaving the rural markets and the harder to serve and the more costly to serve to the not-for-profits who cannot then compete on a competitive for-profit basis. That is a crisis. There are communities right across northern Ontario that will be without any home care, because the Red Cross is the only one in the business, directly as a result of your government's action.

Let's talk about nursing homes and the way you did away with the minimum hours of nursing care and what that means when you've got older, sicker seniors in there who are getting assembly-line care, who are not getting the kind of attention. This is not a proud record. When you meet with your counterpart ministers about the international year, this is what will mark your government.

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, just very quickly: I wanted to draw to your attention a problem with respect to accessibility to the Legislature and the proceedings in the Legislature.

Two quick points: Yesterday, in the committee dealing with the social assistance bill and the disability income support plan bill, we found a situation where there were not interpreters being provided. That effectively meant that persons from the deaf community were unable to participate in the audience or to follow the proceedings. That particular issue was dealt with by the committee and we've attempted to resolve it. But it does raise the broader issue for members of the Legislative Assembly to take under consideration with respect to the accessibility of members of the deaf community.

It was suggested by one of the government members of the committee that captioning on the television should be turned on and that would solve the problem. It was pointed out by the clerk of the committee that budget cuts had meant that the captioning service has been cut, and I think this is a very serious issue.

Second, when the committee took its half-hour supper break at 6 o'clock -- you will know now that we have more things going on in the Legislative Assembly in the evening in terms of debate in the House and in terms of committees sitting in the evening -- a member of the public who was participating in these committees, who was monitoring the committee, Jeannie Kippay, who is in a wheelchair, went down to the back door, and you'll realize that's the only door that has wheelchair access, was unable to get out because there was not a security guard there and the system on the door that opens it automatically when someone approaches it is turned off at 6 o'clock. She was unable to leave the building until someone came along to open the door for her. When she attempted to return after having gotten a bite to eat, to come back to monitor the rest of the hearings, because there was no guard at the door, she was unable to have any access to the building.

Mr Speaker, I would draw these issues to your attention and ask that perhaps through the Board of Internal Economy you take a look at what might be done to resolve these issues of access, particularly with respect to personning the back door with a security person to let people in.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): It's not a point of privilege. I will refer this to the Board of Internal Economy. If in future you have concerns such as this, if you would alert me, I'm sure we can handle it administratively by another option. But I hear what you say. It will be referred, and I'm certain we will deal with it at the Board of Internal Economy.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. You are quoted as saying that school boards and teachers are not trusted to deliver quality education in Ontario. You should understand that at the very, very best of times that kind of statement is very, very unhelpful. But understanding that, you have brought things to the brink here in Ontario when it comes to our teachers. We are on the verge of a strike throughout the province that will involve 126,000 teachers, 2.1 million students and over one million households.

In that context, when teachers and parents right now are extremely sensitive to the kinds of signals that are being sent by their government and they're wondering whether you're doing everything you possibly can to resolve this matter, how could you then, in that context, fan these flames?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think you will find that both I and my cabinet colleagues, particularly the Minister of Education, have been very low-key, not fanning any flames, acknowledging the facts. The statement you quoted is quite true. That's the reason for the bill. That's the reason for the change. You see, what's happened is this: We're not getting the quality of education that is good enough, that competes with other jurisdictions. We know it's not a money problem because we spend more money. We know it's not a problem of our teachers; we have the best teachers in the world. So we have a problem with the system, and that is indeed what we are addressing: fewer trustees, fewer bureaucrats, more resources into the classroom. That is the purpose of the legislation and of the changes we are making to the system.

Mr McGuinty: I think it's important to note the Premier just said two things that are very important for us to understand. First of all, he effectively repeated his statement. He continues to say that trustees and teachers in Ontario cannot be trusted to deliver quality education. I can't believe it.

Interjections.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm out of order.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): And you're out of order. That goes without saying. Supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, where do you get off telling us that we can't trust our 126,000 teachers in Ontario and that we can't trust our trustees, duly elected locally by people who put their faith in them to address local education issues? Why can't we trust those people?

The second thing the Premier told us is that since we can't trust those groups of people -- we can't trust our teachers, dedicated to teaching, and we can't trust our trustees, dedicated to local organization of education -- we ought to trust the Premier with education in Ontario. This is the man who has already removed $533 million from our education system. Why should we trust you, Premier, given that you've already removed $533 million, you want to take another $1 billion out of the system and you want to lay off thousands of teachers?

Hon Mr Harris: The member may want to correct his record, but I will do it for him. If he wishes to apologize, that will be up to him. Never, ever have I said that we do not trust Ontario teachers. Never have I said that. I have said consistently that we have the best teachers in the world.

1420

But I do want to tell you that what we are asking for is a legislative change. Then you don't have to trust any politician, any party, any Premier, any trustee or any union. I have commented on the unions. These are the unions that negotiated an increase in class size of 4.7% from 1991-95. Why? To comply with the social contract. How did they react to the social contract? They called for an increase in the PTR of 4.75%. That is unacceptable to us as a way to cope with the changes the NDP brought in.

The Bruce County Board of Education was faced with a 3% reduction in operating expenditures. At the same time, enrolment fell by --

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Please come to order.

Mr McGuinty: The Premier is very reluctant, obviously, to quote those many examples of other cases throughout the province where teachers and trustees have in fact negotiated bigger class sizes. But do you know what they did? They took on four or five more students so they could keep junior kindergarten; they took on a few more students so they could save the speech pathologist; they took on a few more students so they could maintain the school librarian. They did that because you were making the cuts.

You want us to trust you with our students' education. You want us to trust you with the education of our kids. I'll tell you why we can't do that. You've already taken out $533 million. You're threatening to take out another $1 billion. You're cutting junior kindergarten, you're cutting special education, you're cutting adult education. Given all of that, Premier, I'm going to ask you to put your ego aside, put the kids first and put your bill on ice.

Hon Mr Harris: Other than inflaming the rhetoric, which I don't think is helpful, I'm not sure what it is you're contributing to this debate.

You say I don't want to quote other examples. Durham separate increased maximum size of advanced secondary classes from 32 to 33. Why? So they could get a raise and get a 5% cut restored. Espanola public increased maximum size of advanced secondary classes from 27 to 28. Why? So they could get their 5% back on the grid. Lakehead District Roman Catholic Separate School Board, in the riding of the former minister who made the mess we inherited there, increased the PTR by 0.16% in elementary and 0.28% in secondary in a recent agreement.

You can talk about why teachers' unions and boards have negotiated an increase in class size. We're not interested in why. We're saying it's going to stop. We're bringing in legislation to stop it. So if you were interested, as we are interested, in the quality of education, in improving the contact time of teachers with students, you would be encouraging us to proceed with this legislation as quickly as possible.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Fort William, withdraw that comment.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): Mr Speaker, I can't withdraw it, because I believe this government is attacking teacher --

The Speaker: I name the member for Fort William, Mrs McLeod.

Mrs McLeod was escorted from the chamber.

Interjections.

HOME CARE

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): I have a question for the Minister of Health. We learned today that 6,400 Red Cross homemakers could very well lose their jobs. These people serve 73,000 of our frail elderly Ontarians. They help them prepare meals, they help them with their groceries, they help them with their household chores. What they effectively do is help them continue to live in their homes.

The Red Cross has gone to you for help, and apparently there's some kind of juggling between you and the Minister of Labour as to who should assume responsibility for these 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians. I suggest to you, Minister, that those Ontarians, our seniors, the ones just referred to by your minister responsible for seniors in Ontario, are your responsibility.

I'm asking you, Minister, what are you going to do to ensure that those 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians continue to receive uninterrupted homemaker service?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): I would just like to go back to 1988, when your government introduced the Pay Equity Act. You indicated at that time that all employers who had 500 or more employees would be responsible for using the job-to-job method in the pay equity comparison.

At that time the Red Cross was the only homemaker service with more than 500 employees, so they were put in the position of using the job-to-job comparison. You also at that time indicated that the compliance date would be January 1, 1998. So this was established by the Peterson Liberal government at that time.

Since then the NDP had an opportunity to make changes, and unfortunately there have been none made whatsoever, so at the present time we have a situation where I understand they have written a letter, they've asked --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you very much. Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: On behalf of the 73,000 senior Ontarians I'm asking this question for, I will be pleased to send them your response. The fact that the Minister of Health has referred the matter of ongoing home care for 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians is very telling.

That's what this is all about. Minister, at some point you're going to have to begin to assume responsibility for health care in Ontario. He claims he's the Minister of Health, but he's not responsible for hospital closings. He claims he's the Minister of Health, but now he's not responsible for the ongoing home care of 73,000 frail and elderly Ontarians.

Nobody gives a damn about a 1988 debate. Those 73,000 Ontarians today want to know what this Minister of Health is going to do, so back to you, Minister: What are you going to do?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I would indicate to you that this problem was created by the 1988 legislation, but I would also --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister.

1430

Hon Mrs Witmer: I believe it's important to point out that there are presently 170 other homemaking services that are provided to taxpayers in this province. There is no one homemaking service that has any monopoly. Certainly we give you our assurance that services would continue to be delivered to people in this province.

Mr McGuinty: I knew a cabinet shuffle was coming, but I didn't know it had already taken place. It's going to cost, I understand, $36 million to keep these 73,000 seniors living in their homes. If you want to talk about real fiscal responsibility, guess how much it's going to cost if we stop funding that? How much is it going to cost if we instead institutionalize our seniors, people who have raised their families --

Interjections.

Mr McGuinty: If the minister has something to say --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr McGuinty: Those 73,000 frail elderly Ontarians don't want to hear anything about pay equity. They don't want to hear anything about what happened in 1988 in terms of some parliamentary debate. All they want to know is that the Minister of Health is going to stand up and protect their interests, that the Minister of Health is going to do everything he can to ensure that they can live on in their homes for as long as they possibly can. That's all they want to know; it's as simple as that.

Once again, Minister of Health -- and stop referring this to the Minister of Labour; I don't have a question for her, I have one for you -- what are you going to do to help these seniors?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members for Hamilton East and Ottawa West, I'll warn you now, come to order. Next time I'll ask you to be removed. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately it was the Pay Equity Act, 1988, that created the problem today. Even if we were to provide the financial funding, it would simply make the Red Cross uncompetitive in comparison to the other home care providers.

I say to you, leader of the third party, I know there was a letter that you received --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I'll wait, folks. We're going to wait the whole question period.

Hon Mrs Witmer: I know that the Premier recently received a letter from the Red Cross. In that letter they state, "We are respectfully requesting that all three party leaders come together on a non-partisan basis, putting people before politics to resolve this problem."

If the two opposition parties wish to come forward and work with us to find solutions to this dilemma, which has resulted from the requirements of the Pay Equity Act of 1988, I would encourage them to do so. But I can assure you, we will continue to provide the services to people in this province.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): A question for Premier: For the last two years your Minister of Education has provoked a senseless confrontation with Ontario's teachers. Your Minister of Education has gone across the province and he has prattled on about taking a further $1 billion from education. He has created a situation where 90 days from now new school boards have no idea what their budgets will be. He has created a situation where parents across the province are very concerned that their children's education will be disrupted in the next few weeks.

Premier, you can end this senseless confrontation of your Minister of Education. I ask you today to do two things: Withdraw Bill 160 until your Minister of Education presents his budget formula for all the new school boards; withdraw Bill 160 until the parents across this province know how much money is going to be available for the education of their children.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader of the New Democratic Party is totally mistaken when he says the changes we're talking about now have some effect 90 days from now. The changes we're talking about now have some effect in September 1998. The bill we are talking about now does facilitate the amalgamation of school boards, though, which takes place January 1. Because some were concerned with the changes about funding, the minister guaranteed stable funding right through to the end of this fiscal school year, guaranteed that funding right through this fiscal year.

What we're talking about that you are asking for is funding levels for 1998. Yes, the minister is working on those and those will be announced. But in the meantime we have a piece of legislation to facilitate fewer trustees, less pay for trustees, fewer bureaucrats and more money in the classroom, and I suggest we proceed with that.

Mr Hampton: The Premier obviously isn't listening to what's happening out there. He isn't listening to the meetings that are being attended by thousands and thousands of teachers. He isn't listening to the students who are leaving their schools even in his own home town to protest the cuts to education. No one believes your government's rhetoric. This Minister of Education said he wouldn't cut school budgets any further this year. Then he went out and took a further $300 million out of schools' budgets.

I put the question to you again, Premier. Parents want to know what the funding formula for education is in this province. School boards want to know what the funding formula for education is in this province. Will you withdraw Bill 160 until your Minister of Education presents the numbers, presents the budgets, so that parents and school boards will know how much money is available for the education of children in this province?

Hon Mr Harris: Other than the misinformation and the rhetoric that has been out there, this government, this Premier, this cabinet and this minister have been very straightforward, very honest, very up front about where the money is going, how much is there and where it will be. I agree with you there are some parents who have concerns about the misleading rhetoric coming from some of the teacher unions. There are some students who are concerned about the misleading rhetoric coming from the teacher unions. I don't think it's helpful for you to repeat that misleading rhetoric that's coming from the teacher unions. Rather, you'd be better to stick to the facts, and when you get to the facts they are this: Your government facilitated and accommodated school boards and teacher unions to increase class size so that they could have more money for other things, their own pay, restore the social contract and other things. This legislation will stop that from happening. The bill before the House --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I want to warn the members for Beaches-Woodbine and Sudbury East to come to order. I've warned you. Final supplementary.

1440

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Since the Premier doesn't like certain sources of information, I'll quote the Education Improvement Commission that he appointed, which called on the government to reinvest any money that is saved from restructuring or changes in the contracts or any of the changes in the powers and relations between the provincial government and teachers in the province. Even the Premier's good Conservative friend Hugh Segal has said that if you're going to restructure, you've got to keep the money in the system so it's done well. The Premier has indicated that maybe they aren't going to take $1 billion out of education but he won't give us a number.

Will the Premier guarantee today that he will not cut any more money from the education of our students in this province and that any savings he achieves will be reinvested in the schools of our province, in the education of our children? Will the Premier give us that guarantee?

Hon Mr Harris: We gave a guarantee in the campaign, post-campaign, yesterday, and I'm happy to give you the guarantee today. We will not cut a penny of education spending from the classrooms of the students of this province. I give you that commitment.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Harris: Second, we expect savings from following the Education Improvement Commission recommendations on prep time for secondary school -- I think that was the recommendation of David Cooke, former NDP Minister of Education -- and we expect some savings from fewer trustees, less pay for trustees and fewer bureaucrats. We are committed to reinvest every penny required to have a superior education system to the one you left us.

STEWART BRADDICK

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question again for the Premier, and I would say to the Premier it's remarkable how many "excepts" and "maybes" and weasel words he uses when he talks about education funding.

I want to ask the Premier about the new employee in his office, one Stewart Braddick, who you've hired as your director of organization. We know Mr Braddick worked for one Brian Mulroney and then was hired by the BC Liberal leader, Gordon Campbell, but he was forced to resign from his job in the BC Liberal caucus because it was found by the Auditor General in British Columbia that he had misspent $1 million of taxpayers' money. He had used $1 million of taxpayers' money to fund a partisan political piece of mail for the Liberal Party in British Columbia. He was forced to resign because of this abuse. Premier, why are you hiring someone who abused the public purse to the tune of $1 million?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. The third party, come to order.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): The leader raises a question of an employee we have hired, somebody who has an outstanding record in Manitoba, British Columbia, Ontario, at the national level as well. In fact, he even worked for our good friend Jean Charest in the last campaign.

However, I think the issue you raise is that while he was working for the Liberal leader in British Columbia -- and yes, Stew Braddick had disclosed to us that he was employed there when a direct mail campaign that had the approval of the caucus and of the leader, signed by the Liberal leader at the time, and a piece of literature I might say a little milder than the stuff I see you and the Liberals sending out in Ontario -- the leader acknowledged as well that he had made a political decision to send the material in its form. There were questions raised about that mailout and Mr Braddick, to save the leader and the party from further embarrassment, resigned his position. That kind of honour is the kind we respect in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr Hampton: Premier, it's a remarkable and valiant effort you put forward, but the Auditor General of British Columbia was asked to investigate the situation. Yes, he said that the BC Liberal Party had misused its privileges, but then the Auditor General specifically found that Stewart Braddick, the person you have now hired, had misused $1 million of taxpayers' money.

I simply ask you this: What job do you have in your office that is so important that you have to hire somebody who lost his job in British Columbia because he misused $1 million of taxpayers' money and the Auditor General of that province found it to be so? What job do you have in your office that is so important that you have to hire someone like that?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): What about this?

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, that's out of order. Thank you. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: I think his job description is pretty straightforward and I believe appropriate. If you quote from the Auditor General of British Columbia, it was on the content of a Liberal mailing, including material of a partisan political nature, and some of the mailings were not personally addressed. In other words, they were, "Dear Householder."

You may want to check some of your mailings recently, leader of the third party, and you may want to be very careful in consulting a lawyer before you repeat the accusations outside the House that you made in here.

Mr Hampton: I will repeat the claim. The Auditor General of British Columbia found that there was a $1-million misuse of taxpayers' money and he identified the person you have now hired in your office, Stewart Braddick, as the person principally responsible.

If the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party wants to hire someone to do the kind of partisan dirty tricks that Mr Braddick is identified with, the Ontario Conservative Party can do that. But Premier, I want to ask you: Can you tell us why the taxpayers of Ontario should be paying the salary of someone like Stewart Braddick, who has been identified with this $1-million misuse of public funds in British Columbia? Why should the taxpayers of Ontario pay this person's salary so he can work in your office?

1450

Hon Mr Harris: I'm not sure the question is worthy of an answer. When it comes to dirty tricks, nobody takes a back seat to the NDP of Ontario: nobody, no party, no individual. The kind of accusations that you are making in this Legislature are inappropriate and inaccurate. They are wrong and I invite him to step outside and repeat them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Leader of the third party, you had a point of order?

Mr Hampton: On a point of privilege, Speaker: I put it to the Premier: You explain why taxpayers should pay this person's salary.

Interjections.

Mr Baird: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I wonder if you can tell me whether it's in order that the NDP sent posters --

The Speaker: Member for Nepean, that's not in order.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I would like to address this question to the Minister of Health.

Interjections: Which one?

Mr Kennedy: Whichever minister would like to answer. It is a serious question. A lot of the back bench in this room would probably like to know about the small and rural health policy that this government put forward a number of months ago. Today we were to learn how that would work. We were to find out in Lambton county, where at the last minute, two days before the final report of the Health Services Restructuring Commission, the government stepped in and said, "Stop, we want to think this over."

Today, we hear their next report comes out and it takes away 30% of all the hospital beds, and it won't tell us what happens to Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital. You've made it a ping-pong between the DHC, the district health council -- what will you tell the people --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'm again flabbergasted the honourable member is opposed to what the commission's final directives outline as a health service plan for Lambton county. To quote the commission press release, it says:

"I want to stress that there will be no reduction of services as a result of these recommendations. There will be enhanced services for all Lambton county residents. We believe that our decisions will lead to improved quality and better access to a wide range of services for the population served by Lambton county," concluded Mr Doug Lawson, the commissioner.

The reinvestments of up to $7.5 million are being recommended for community services, home care, long-term care, rehabilitation services, mental health services; $1.9 million for sub-acute; $37 million in new construction -- Lambton county hasn't seen that in its health care history; $19 million for other bells and whistles. It's a tremendous report for health care for Lambton county, and, yes, the commission has said that it's leaving it up to the DHC to implement the rural health care policy with respect to the hospital in Petrolia.

Mr Kennedy: All we know is that the health services commission has access to this minister's press release writers, because those words aren't borne out. When it comes to access to health services, what really matters here is that $18 million a year is being taken away from the people of Sarnia, Petrolia and the county of Lambton. You say you're giving them money back. They will lose more money in three years than you say you're going to reinvest at some future date.

Minister, you said there would be a rural policy that would take into account the special needs of rural Ontario. Instead, you're health restructuring commission has ignored it and they have not made a decision. Will you commit to stand by the decision of the district health council in terms of which hospital stays open? You've already allowed them to take $18 million. You've damaged the health service in that county. Will you at least allow Charlotte Englehart to stay open if the district health council says it will?

Hon Mr Wilson: That's what the policy says. If we took the Liberal and NDP benchmarks that were used and applied those across rural Ontario, it closed rural hospitals. We're not about closing rural hospitals; we're about opening those 68 emergency rooms that closed under the NDP. We've done that through a $70-an-hour on-call fee for physicians. We're about moving the hospital in Petrolia that you're talking about from 18 hours, which has been recommended over the years by the DHC, back up to 24-hour emergency care. That's what the rural health care policy calls for and that's what we're going to do in Petrolia for the people of Petrolia.

HOME CARE

Mr Howard Hampton (Rainy River): I have a question for the Minister of Health. I want to ask the Minister of Health what he is going to do about all of the people who need home care in communities like Kenora, Dryden, Red Lake, Sioux Lookout, Fort Frances, Blind River, Elliot Lake, Wawa, White River, Dubreuilville, Timmins, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Smooth Rock Falls, Iroquois Falls -- I could go on. What are you going to do about providing home care in all those communities where the Red Cross will have to lay off the home care providers because your government is not providing the pay equity funding that has been ordered for all of those Red Cross home care providers?

Hon Jim Wilson (Minister of Health): I'll refer the question to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Labour): To the leader of the third party, I certainly want to assure you that services will continue to be provided for all of those individuals because I would just indicate one more time that there are many, many homemaker services available. Unfortunately, you had an opportunity in 1993 to correct the problem for the Red Cross when you made amendments to the Pay Equity Act, and you refused to take any action whatsoever. You actually made it worse.

Mr Hampton: Here is the situation. This is a government that has now been in power for two and a half years. The Ontario Court of Justice has found they violated the Constitution of Canada and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by trying to deny some of the lowest-paid workers in the province pay equity. Your cuts to pay equity have created this situation and your cuts to home care have created this situation, nothing else.

Minister, I guess you're the new Minister of Health, because the Minister of Health that we have refuses to be responsible for health care.

The reality is that in the communities I've listed there are no alternative providers. These are areas where your for-profit corporations don't want to bid because the cost of delivering home care is expensive and difficult. People are spread out over a large area. So there is no provider other than the Red Cross. What are you going to do to ensure that these people who need home care are going to get the home care they deserve and require?

1500

Hon Mrs Witmer: There are certainly many, many other homemaker service providers in this province who would be quite prepared to --

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): That's not true.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Order. Member for Algoma, you can't say that. That's out of order. I ask you to withdraw.

Mr Wildman: The minister is incorrect.

The Speaker: Just withdraw the comment, member for Algoma.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw the comment, and she's still incorrect.

The Speaker: This is your last chance, or I'll have to name the member for Algoma. Simply withdraw.

Mr Wildman: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: There are other homemaker services that are provided, that are prepared to provide the service.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): There are no other agencies there.

The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order. Members for Cochrane North and Lake Nipigon, come to order. Minister.

Hon Mrs Witmer: However, the question I would pose to the leader of the third party is the one that has been posed to us by the Red Cross, and that is, they are suggesting that all three parties come together and find a solution. I would ask you, what solutions do you have to deal with the Pay Equity Act, 1988, that created the dilemma that the Red Cross faces today?

FERRY SERVICE

Mrs Barbara Fisher (Bruce): My question this afternoon is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines with regards to the Chi-Cheemaun ferry service, which operates from Tobermory in my riding of Bruce to Manitoulin Island. As you know, the service provided by the Chi-Cheemaun is important to the riding of Bruce and it attracts and assists in drawing tourists to our area. What is the government doing to ensure that the ferry continues to provide efficient services to our area?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Minister of Natural Resources, Northern Development and Mines): I want to thank the member for Bruce for a very important question. It's a welcome relief. As the member states and as you would know, the ferry service plays an important role in the Manitoulin-Bruce Peninsula area, and it's run by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

Currently there has been a series of meetings taking place with local people, led by the chairman of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission and some board members, to discuss how they can improve the service. I want to thank the member for Bruce for her role in this. I know that tomorrow or Thursday they're meeting with local representation from the island and I look forward to seeing the progress the board takes from these local people who want to improve the service of the ferry.

Mrs Fisher: We have been working very hard in the community to further the efforts that can be made by the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission advisory board to bring further tourism to our area. I wonder if you could tell us about some of the innovative ideas that the ONTC has undertaken in the past while and what we might be able to look forward to for services in the future.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I predict that he can tell us.

Hon Mr Hodgson: As usual the member for St Catharines is clairvoyant. There have been a number of very useful suggestions that have come forward from this consultation. I again want to thank the member for Bruce for the role she has played in this.

This summer the ONTC board recommended that the ferry service launch a dinner cruise one night a week. I know that the members of the Liberal Party are particularly interested in this: It was so successful, they extended it to three nights a week. We've expanded the children's play area on the upper decks and have singers onshore and offshore. There are native tours with a local carver. These are just some of the useful ideas that have come from local participation in trying to improve service, and that's an important part of the tourism economy for Bruce and for Manitoulin Island.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under section 37 of our standing orders, I would like to ask for a late show with the minister on this issue, as he knows the ferry was out of service on at least three occasions.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): You didn't ask the question. You can't have a late show unless you ask a question. New question.

WINDSOR CASINO

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I have a question of the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism. In late May of this year the Ontario Casino Corp put its own project staff on to the permanent casino site in Windsor. Last week we learned that you have called in an outside value-for-money audit to be done by Price Waterhouse at the permanent casino site. There are, as you know, a number of allegations about with respect to the escalating estimated cost to complete the permanent casino site in Windsor.

Officials at the OCC and in your department have indicated that these capital cost increases resulted from the desire of the OCC and Windsor Casino Ltd to make sure the permanent casino site in Windsor remains competitive with the new casinos coming on stream in Detroit.

Given all this, will you release the instructions you have given to the outside auditors? Will you undertake to release their final report?

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Yes, we certainly will be making the results of the audit known. I think the audit makes a great deal of sense; any audit makes a great deal of sense, for that matter. We want to make sure that the taxpayers are getting good value for their dollar and that money is being spent wisely and correctly.

We have the concern you mentioned that because Michigan last year in the elections voted to have casinos, there would be three casinos built on the Michigan side of the river. Each one of those will be worth roughly $1 billion. We wanted to make sure we enhance our casino in Windsor properly so that we can compete with those new facilities. It just makes good sense to make sure we are competitive when the time comes.

Mr Duncan: We want to be sure that Casino Windsor can be competitive with the Detroit casinos. We want to ensure that the people of Windsor continue to gain the maximum benefit from this development, as do the people of Ontario. It's been alleged that the cost estimates to complete construction have risen from $240 million to $340 million. It is alleged to us that construction, which is well along, has been going on without a signed contract between the OCC and the contractor or between your ministry and the contractor.

Finally, if it is truly your desire to ensure that Casino Windsor remains competitive with Detroit, why have you not responded to the city of Windsor's June 16 resolution with respect to the Western Anchor? Why did you not call auditors in till this point in time when the casino is almost done? How is it that if we want to be competitive, we could allow a situation like this to go on without --

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Minister.

Hon Mr Saunderson: Just a little bit of history here: Back in 1994 there was an initial agreement made between the previous government with Windsor Casino Ltd and the Ontario Casino Corp. That agreement was on a cost-plus basis. He probably is aware of that. I'm not sure that cost-plus agreements are always the best types of agreements to make. We have certainly put a cap on any changes that will be made in the future. That's why we have assigned the audit to Price Waterhouse.

I want to say again that we are concerned, as the member is, and it's very good that he is, about protecting the people of Windsor, making sure the jobs are made permanent. There are about 11,000 new jobs from this casino. The revenue to date that has been received from the casino is well over $1 billion. We want to make sure that the taxpayers are well served and that the audit is well performed. It will report in due course and of course we will report at that time.

1510

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. We have an extensive credible and growing list of individuals and groups that are supporting our call for a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire in Hamilton. That list includes Hamilton firefighters; local residents; environmentalists; our city council; our regional council; other municipalities such as Oshawa, Ajax, Burlington, Halton, Niagara, Toronto, Frontenac, Cambridge; and three out of four of the MPPs, one of whom happens to be one of your Tory backbenchers.

Minister, what I want to know from you is, who besides you and your officials agrees with your position that there doesn't need to be a public inquiry into the Plastimet fire?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): The government obviously believes that an inquiry into this matter is not necessary, that there hasn't been substantial evidence brought forward to us that an inquiry is needed at the provincial level. I have said to the member before, if the city wants to have an inquiry, God bless them. Have the inquiry. We will cooperate. Most of the issues are dealing with the medical officer of health and the fire department. The medical officer of health is responsible to the regional government. They can have a joint inquiry. Let them go ahead.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): We want an inquiry. You heard him.

Mr Christopherson: Minister, you will appreciate I think that even the most fairminded, objective individual in this province, after listening to the list of groups and the number of issues that have been raised that your government has not been able to answer, wonders exactly what it is you're hiding.

Today it's reported in the Hamilton Spectator and on TV that the International Association of Fire Fighters based in Washington, DC, are concerned about this because it may affect other communities across North America. They see the importance of holding a public inquiry, but you don't.

Minister, my question to you is this: With you being the only one who knows what's right in this issue -- in the whole world you're the only one -- I want to know what it is you're hiding. What are you covering up? Why are you afraid of a public inquiry?

Hon Mr Sterling: As I said before -- the firefighters, a prime example: city responsibility. If the city wants to have an inquiry, have an inquiry.

ROAD MAINTENANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a question for the Minister of Transportation. Recently, the warden of Simcoe county, Mr Jack Hunter, expressed his concerns over the long-term replacement costs for roads recently transferred from provincial jurisdiction to county responsibility. Several mayors in my riding of Simcoe East also echo the concerns for future major expenditure for road replacement or bridge repairs and replacements.

Minister, what contingency plans has your ministry made to assist small municipalities when they find themselves facing prohibitive expenditures for road or bridge repairs?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I want to thank the member for Simcoe East for the question. It certainly helps to have some clarifications.

Local governments are in the best position to deliver and respond to local transportation needs. Highway transfers of roads that serve local traffic are consistent with this approach. The member will also know that Simcoe county will be receiving in compensation the amount of $14.2 million for the highways that will be transferred as of January 1. This dollar figure is made up of three components: an amount that recognizes the present condition of the road; an amount that takes into account the impact on the municipality's particular size of road system; and one year's worth of maintenance.

On top of this, this government is proposing a permanent community reinvestment fund of $500 million to be installed on a yearly basis. This is to help the municipalities that may be affected in a disproportionate transfer of highways.

Mr McLean: In the last election, Premier Harris talked of the importance of maintaining our province's transportation system, which is vital for the movement of goods from rural Ontario to major urban markets. We all know future growth in Ontario will depend heavily on good roads. Minister, have you developed plans to assist the municipalities in planning for maintenance and expanding infrastructure to meet the demands of the economic growth?

Hon Mr Palladini: I believe we have done a lot of things over the last two years to help municipalities manage their own road systems. For example, we have simplified the funding relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities. We have done away with confusing, complicated funding formulas. We have also made room on the property tax so that those dollars that municipalities collect can go back into hard services like roads. For those municipalities receiving transfers, we are providing the five-year compensation dollar amount up front. This will allow them to plan their spending.

The province's role is to maintain the provincial highway system, highways that contribute to the general economy of the province of Ontario. We have spent more on repairing and rehabilitating our provincial highways in each of the last two years than the previous government spent in their mandate.

I believe this has made a difference in the economy. In the past two years, I believe this government has been responsible for creating at least over 200,000 jobs back into the economy.

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): My question is to the Minister of Environment and Energy. During your response a few minutes ago to the member for Hamilton Centre, the Premier said, "We want an inquiry." That came from your Premier; Hansard picked it up. The Premier said, "We want an inquiry" into Plastimet. So now the Premier has added his voice to those of your backbencher the member for Hamilton Mountain, the member for Hamilton Centre, the community groups and the firefighters.

Minister, there's a problem here: Nobody trusts you. Nobody trusts your government on this issue. Nobody trusts the answer you're giving people. It comes down to a simple question here: You are afraid to call a public inquiry. I've submitted 238 questions; you have not answered one of them yet. You are afraid. You are scared that a public inquiry is going to show very clearly that you've been negligent and your ministry has been negligent in handling the Plastimet scenario.

You don't give a damn about firefighters; you don't give a damn about the people of Hamilton. You're discriminating against Hamiltonians. If this fire had occurred in one of your 905-belt areas, had it occurred in Burlington or Oshawa, you would have called an inquiry. Why are you practising environmental discrimination against the people of Hamilton by refusing to call a public inquiry?

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of Environment and Energy): I think the Premier was responding to my response in saying to the other member from Hamilton that if you want to have an inquiry, if the city of Hamilton, who have said they want --

Mr Agostino: It is your responsibility. You are ducking.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Member for Hamilton East, I've warned you three times. I name the member for Hamilton East, Mr Agostino.

Mr Agostino was escorted from the chamber.

Hon Mr Sterling: Many politicians at the provincial and municipal level, in response to a very unfortunate incident for the people of Hamilton, have turned to the fact that an inquiry is going to solve all of the problems. My ministry is on the site, cleaning up the site. They've been providing information to the people of Hamilton, information which has been accurate, information which has been good, in order to allow the fire officials and the medical officer of health to make the right decisions.

As I said before, I don't believe that an inquiry will prove anything or do anything for anybody. However, if the city of Hamilton and the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth want an inquiry, they can do it under their legislation. I invite them, I implore them, to have the inquiry they're demanding.

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition concerns Bill 160 and is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents, teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down" -- won't back down, won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

1520

FIRE IN HAMILTON

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I've a petition from constituents of mine in downtown Hamilton. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a fire at a PVC plastic vinyl plant located in the middle of one of Hamilton's residential areas burned for three days; and

"Whereas the city of Hamilton declared a state of emergency and called for a limited voluntary evacuation of several blocks around the site; and

"Whereas the burning of PVC results in the formation and release of toxic substances such as dioxins, as well as large quantities of heavy metals and other dangerous chemicals;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to hold a full public inquiry on the Hamilton Plastimet fire."

I gladly and proudly add my name to theirs.

CHILD CARE

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 19 people.

"We, the undersigned residents of Ontario, draw the attention of the Legislature of Ontario to the following:

"That managing the family home and caring for infants and preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society and deserves respect and support;

"That child care policies and funding should provide equity and fairness to all Ontario families;

"Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Legislature,

"(a) to pursue policy and funding initiatives that will support a full range of child care choices, such as extending the child care tax credit to all families, including those providing full-time parental care; and

"(b) to pursue discussions with the federal government to review the tax system to find ways to assist two-parent families where one parent chooses to remain at home."

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health had started to charge seniors and social assistance recipients a $2 user fee for each prescription filled on July 15, 1996; and

"Whereas seniors on a fixed income do not significantly benefit from the income tax savings created by this user fee copayment or from other non-health user fees; and

"Whereas the perceived savings to health care from the $2 copayment fee will not compensate for the suffering and misery caused by this user fee or the painstaking task involved to fill out the application forms; and

"Whereas the current Ontario Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, promised as an opposition MPP in a July 5, 1993, letter to the Ontario pharmacists that his party would not endorse legislation that will punish patients to the detriment of health care in Ontario,

"We, the undersigned Ontario residents, strongly urge the government to repeal this user fee plan because the tax-saving user fee concept is not fair, sensitive or accessible to low-income or fixed-income seniors and, lest we forget, our province's seniors have paid their dues by collectively contributing to the social, economic, moral and political fabric of Canada."

I affix my signature to this because I fully agree with it.

SCHOOL PRAYERS

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): A petition to the province of Ontario:

"The Grand Orange Lodge of Ontario, signed by Madoc Lodge 1193, being a firm supporter of the public system and the Protestant faith, does with the undersigned hereby petition the government of Ontario to reinstate the Lord's Prayer in the public school system of Ontario."

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I have a very important petition here that deals with the so-called standing orders reform --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): You may explain it or read it, one or the other.

Mr Gerretsen: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It states:

"Whereas the people of Ontario want rigorous discussion on legislation dealing with public policy issues like health care, education and care for seniors; and

"Whereas many people in Ontario believe that the Mike Harris government is moving too quickly and recklessly, creating havoc with the provision of quality health care and quality education; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has passed new legislative rules which have eroded the ability of both the public and the media to closely scrutinize the actions of the Ontario government; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, when they were in opposition, defended the rights of the opposition and used the rules to their full advantage when they believed it was necessary to slow down the passage of controversial legislation; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has now reduced the amount of time that MPPs have to debate the important issues of today; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris government, through its rule changes, has diminished the role of elected members of the Legislative Assembly, who are, after all, accountable to the people who elect them, and instead has chosen to concentrate power in the Premier's office in the hands of people who are not elected officials;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, call upon Mike Harris to withdraw his draconian rule changes and restore rules which promote rigorous debate on contentious issues and hold the government accountable to the people of Ontario."

I've signed it as well, and I'm handing it over to Lee Ann right now.

COURT DECISION

Mr Bob Wood (London South): I have a petition signed by 40 people.

"Whereas the courts have ruled that women have the lawful right to appear topless in public; and

"Whereas the Liberal government of Canada has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the government of Ontario to pass a bill empowering municipalities to enact bylaws governing dress code and to continue to urge the government of Canada to pass legislation to reinstate such partial nudity as an offence."

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'd like to present a petition in regard to Bill 160. It reads:

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiments and with the petitioners and I gladly affix my signature to this petition.

COURT DECISION

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): I'm pleased to bring forward a petition from about 100 people from the United Brethren in Christ Church in Fort Erie on Garrison Road. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario Court of Appeal has ruled that women have the lawful right to go topless in public; and

"Whereas the federal government has the power to change the Criminal Code to reinstate such public nudity as an offence;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to continue to urge the government of Canada to enact legislation to ban going topless in public places."

I have signed my signature to it in agreement.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): This is a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged the additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I affix my signature along with hundreds of others from my community to this petition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Mike Harris government has announced its intentions of dumping the financing for ambulances, social housing and public health care services on to the backs of municipalities; and

"Whereas this irresponsible action will create a shortfall of more than $42 million for local governments in St Catharines and the Niagara region; and

"Whereas local representatives in St Catharines and the Niagara region will be forced to either raise property taxes by as much as $200 per household or cut services; and

"Whereas Mike Harris called municipal representatives whiners when they tried to explain to him that his proposal was unfair and would create gaps in important services such as the delivery of public health care services; and

"Whereas the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing accused local representatives of being opportunistic simply because they attempted to point out that the Mike Harris proposal was unfair and primarily designed to fund his ill-advised tax scheme; and

"Whereas the Harris government refuses to listen to the representatives, who work most closely with their constituents;

"We, the undersigned, call on the Mike Harris government to scrap its downloading plan, which will cause either an increase in property taxes or an unacceptable cut to important local services."

I affix my signature, as I'm in full agreement with the petition.

1530

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas education is our future; and

"Whereas students and teachers will not allow their futures to be sacrificed for tax cuts; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers will not allow the government to bankrupt Ontario's education system; and

"Whereas we cannot improve achievement by lowering standards; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers want reinvestment in education rather than reduction in funding; and

"Whereas students, parents and teachers won't back down;

"Therefore, be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to withdraw Bill 160 immediately; and

"Further, be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario instruct the Minister of Education and Training to do his homework and to be a cooperative learner rather than imposing his solution which won't work for the students, parents and teachers of Ontario."

I affix my signature to this petition.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Windsor-Essex county was the first community to undergo hospital restructuring; and

"Whereas the community supported the recommendations of the Win-Win report based on a funding model that included the expansion of community-based care; and

"Whereas recent reports estimate that Windsor-Essex hospitals are underfunded by approximately $122 per person; and

"Whereas this represents the lowest funding per capita for hospital services of any community in Ontario with a population of over 200,000; and

"Whereas hospitals across the province have been forced to further reduce expenditures 18%; and

"Whereas the minister acknowledged that additional funding was necessary in high-growth areas; and

"Whereas these cuts have forced hospitals to eliminate emergency services in the west end of Windsor and cut desperately needed services;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to call on the Minister of Health to provide the appropriate level of health care funding to hospitals in Windsor-Essex which would allow Windsor Regional Hospital to provide urgent care services for the west-end community and to restore equitable health care funding across Windsor and Essex county."

I join hundreds of my fellow citizens in signing this petition.

TVONTARIO

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas TVOntario has served Ontarians of all ages for more than 25 years with quality non-commercial television that continues to focus 70% of its programming on education and children's programming; and

"Whereas TVOntario is available to 97.4% of Ontarians and for some uncabled communities is the only station available, making it a truly provincial asset; and

"Whereas TVOntario continues to work towards increasing self-generated revenues;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to ensure that TVOntario continue to be a publicly owned and funded educational broadcaster."

This is signed by a number of my constituents, mostly from the Elliot Lake and Spanish areas.

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I move that:

Whereas the Mike Harris government has introduced Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act, that will gut rent controls in Ontario, raise tenants' rents and make it easier to demolish their homes; and

Whereas Bill 96 is only part of the Conservatives' attack on affordable housing that includes cancelling over 390 non-profit housing projects and dumping the massive cost of social housing on to Ontario municipalities; and

Whereas tenants across the province have denounced Bill 96 during public hearings; and

Whereas the Tory-dominated legislative committee refused to support Liberal amendments that would have maintained strong tenant protections; and

Whereas during the York South by-election in May 1996 Mike Harris promised that "rent control will continue" and that "tenant protection will be improved under the Mike Harris government"; and

Whereas Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has committed to scrapping Bill 96 and replacing it with meaningful rent controls;

Therefore, this House calls on the Mike Harris government to stop its attack on affordable housing and to immediately withdraw Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act.

We have begun to debate not just rent control through this resolution but an entire affordable housing policy. I want to begin by using part of my time to talk about Bill 96, a bill that the government has called the Tenant Protection Act but which we know is the tenant rejection act, a bill that takes away fundamental protections afforded tenants.

I want to speak first to the issues, the response we've had to that bill and why it's important to have rent controls.

In this country, in this province, we regulate everything from the price of water, the price of utilities, the price of telephones, the price of cable television, yet this government says we ought not to be regulating rent; we ought not to be prepared as a society to ensure that tenants, many of whom spend more than 30% of their income to keep a roof over their heads -- we ought not to protect them. That's what this government says. Instead, they have brought in a bill that they have tried to say or convince or camouflage as rent control. In fact what it is is vacancy decontrol.

Let me explain to the government members how that works. The government proposes that once an apartment unit becomes vacant, the landlord and the prospective tenant or the landlord alone can decide on a new rent which will then be subject to rent control. But that's where the bill fails. That's where the bill deals with what we call discounts. So what happens? A unit becomes vacant, the landlord raises the new rent to some astronomically high figure and then brings back the rent to some discounted level which will allow him or her to effectively escape the provisions of the guideline increases that the government has said will continue.

It is the position of the official opposition that rent control is appropriate in our economy, that the housing market ought to be regulated, and it is the position of the official opposition that when given the opportunity we will withdraw Bill 96 and introduce meaningful rent controls once again in Ontario.

I remind you that Bill 96 replaces six pieces of legislation: the Rent Control Act, the Landlord and Tenant Act, the Rental Housing Protection Act, the Municipal Amendment Act, the Residents' Rights Act and the Land Lease Statute Law Amendment Act.

This bill deals with a whole range of tenant and landlord issues. We proposed some 80 amendments, as I recall. I acknowledge that the government accepted two of those amendments, relatively minor in nature. They were amendments that we put forward to further debate, frankly, and we were quite astounded that the government took two of those minor amendments.

When we talk about housing issues, in addition to Bill 96 let's talk about some of the other things the government has done. They have cancelled all funding for new non-profit units in this province. That's half a billion dollars over four years

They've announced their intention to download responsibility for social housing to municipalities. Think about that. Think about the total cost of that and what it will do to property taxes.

1540

This is the government that, in the view of the official opposition, is the government of increasing property taxes. It is the government that will raise taxes on homeowners from Windsor to Ottawa and throughout this entire province. Whether you live in an urban area or whether you live in a rural area, this is the government of increased property taxes.

Downloading social housing is a mistake. Social housing ought to remain a provincial responsibility. We believe the province should have responsibility for funding social housing in Ontario. We also believe and support the notion that municipalities can provide better and more effective administration, but clearly the funding of social housing ought to remain a provincial responsibility.

The government has also cut welfare allowances by 22%, directly impacting on the ability of the most vulnerable in our society to afford basic shelter. I remind members of the government that 30% of tenants are on welfare.

Finally, they've ended all rent-geared-to-income support.

To add insult to injury, they've cut the maintenance and capital budget of the Ontario Housing Corp by over $100 million. Now we see experimental projects going on in Regent Park and in the Glengarry units in Windsor that could eventually lead to a program of shelter allowance, which is contemplated in the Common Sense Revolution.

We think a government ought to have a clearer vision of providing affordable housing. The government will argue that the stock of rental housing will increase as a result of its Bill 96. We argue that the stock of available rental units will go up, but the stock of available affordable units will go down. Yet again we have a policy, we have a policy framework that penalizes the most vulnerable in our society in order to create a market condition which government members argue will create additional housing for those in a position to afford it.

It's interesting when you read what the demographers tell you. They tell you that at the turn of the century we will need more, not less, affordable housing. Demand for rental units in the affordable category will increase. We heard compelling testimony throughout hearings on this particular bill that it will in fact reduce the amount of affordable housing and leave tenants exposed unnecessarily to market variances, market problems.

We should say, as an official opposition, that there are changes needed. There were changes needed in the area of landlord-tenant relations. There were issues that we addressed completely in committee that any government ought to have addressed: the better administration, the more efficient flow of dispute resolution. Indeed we supported the government in some of those areas and proposed a number of amendments of our own that would have ensured that the government not shirk its responsibility with respect to a more efficient processing of these differences.

We've debated this in the Legislature but we want to say it again today, and we'll say it again in third reading debate, that vacancy decontrol means the slow death of rent controls. Approximately 20% of all apartment units will become vacant in any given calendar year. Over five years, you will go through a complete cycle. As I say, when you couple that with the government's desire to allow discounting of rent, you effectively and completely eliminate rent controls in the province of Ontario.

We've said and argued, and the government has acknowledged, that there will be an increase in tenant harassment by landlords. You can see it in their own bill. They've provided new mechanisms in order to try and protect tenants from this kind of harassment, mechanisms which we said will not work.

Rent control is not a draconian policy that unduly stagnates a market. Rent control is a policy that protects the most vulnerable. Changes to the system of dispute resolution in the Landlord and Tenant Act were overdue, and we proposed our own changes to that system that would make it more efficient. But the bottom line is, there's a place for meaningful rent controls in this province.

The important thing for all of us to remember is that, particularly in those large urban centres, the government must look out for the interests of tenants, tenants who spend a significant portion of their income in order to afford their units. It is incumbent on any government to stand behind tenants and ensure that rent increases are fair, to ensure that balance exists between landlords and tenants. The Davis government, the Peterson government, the Rae government all have endorsed the principles, although there have been differences in the implementation. We see this government backtracking entirely.

We say withdraw Bill 96. Withdraw it today. Let's install a system of meaningful rent control that protects the interests of tenants and will allow for the proper resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. If the government doesn't, the Liberal government in 1999 will repeal Bill 96 and reinstitute a system of meaningful rent controls in the province of Ontario.

Mr David Caplan (Oriole): I'm absolutely delighted to be here to address the motion of the member for Windsor-Walkerville. This is a very important issue in my riding of Oriole.

With that in mind, I would like to speak to two groups in particular in this debate: certainly the residents of Oriole, but also the youth of this province, the youth who expressed their concerns, who went to the hearings and made presentations. Unfortunately, it seems that the government was not listening to the presentations they made.

In Oriole, 48% of the residents are tenants. In fact, last week I was at the annual general meeting of the Oriole community advisory committee. Not one person, not one tenant, because they all were tenants, had a good word to say about Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act. Their message was that this act should be scrapped. Their message was that the government should withdraw Bill 96 immediately. I'm very pleased to be here to send that message, to be the voice of that group and to support my good friend from Windsor-Walkerville in his efforts in this regard.

The message in the by-election was very clear: Bill 96 offered tenants no protections and they want it withdrawn in favour of real rent control and real tenant protections. Six different acts -- not solely financial, but also rights, human rights that people enjoy -- are being changed by Bill 96 and it is just utterly wrong.

The concerns were many. I heard that landlords will be able to raise rents without restriction when a unit becomes vacant. This effectively makes tenants prisoners in their own homes.

I'd like to tell you the story of a woman who lives in Oriole. She has a very modest one-bedroom apartment. She pays $600 a month for rent. She unfortunately is disabled and receives $450 for rent from family benefits. She can't face further rent increases. She can't afford to move after January 1 because rent controls are effectively removed. The government must protect all citizens in Ontario. It is an absolute tragedy waiting to happen, and I hope that all members will have the good sense to support this resolution and prevent situations like this from occurring.

There is real fear among tenants that they will be open to intimidation and harassment from their landlords to move out or to be moved into substandard apartments because they will not be able to find affordable rental accommodation elsewhere. This is particularly true in Metropolitan Toronto, where there is a very low vacancy rate.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has said that this will spur the creation of new rental housing stock. I can tell you that is a myth that is easily shattered because, as the minister and the members well know, anything built after 1974 was exempt from rent controls. The opportunity has always been there, and so you must ask yourselves again, why is Bill 96 being proposed by this government? It is clear that it is just an assault on tenants. Even the government agrees that there will be harassment. They've created this anti-harassment bureau and they've raised fines when tenants are being harassed.

1550

I share the concerns of the Ontario Human Rights Commissioner, Keith Norton, a former minister in past Tory governments, that this bill sets aside provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code that protects tenants from discrimination by landlords. Tenants in Oriole do not like the fact that under the new law, landlords will be able to enter your premises without notice to show the premises; will be able to enter your home without telling you, without prior knowledge. That is fundamentally against the commonest decency that we expect from anyone in our society.

Tenants are concerned that the bill removes almost all protections they had against their homes being turned into condominiums or being demolished at the whim of the landlord.

Finally, tenants in Oriole are concerned that their rents will skyrocket because of the new allowable increases for extraordinary operating expenses such as property tax increases, Hydro rate increases, direct results of legislation -- Bill 106 and Bill 149 of this government -- which will be felt most in Metropolitan Toronto. No tenant can be assured of what their rent will be from year to year.

I also want the chance to speak on behalf of some of the youth groups that came to the hearings and made their voices known and heard. I hope that the members of the Legislature will hear and respond to the concerns and support this resolution. The Ontario wing of the Canadian Federation of Students summed up the concerns of our university tenants quite well when they indicated at the hearings:

"...this bill heavily favours landlords and does little to protect tenant rights and, more importantly, affordable housing. Students will be greatly impacted by any increases to rents. The effects have great spinoff effects for the accessibility of post-secondary education."

Students know that if you move every year, landlords raise the rents every year. This makes affordable housing less accessible every year.

What did other youth groups say during the Bill 96 hearings? The Touchstone Youth Centre brought its concerns about the amendments to the Human Rights Code to the legislative committee. They wanted to stress that this law will affect youths who are already in crisis: youths who are facing family breakdowns, youths who have been evicted and fleeing violence and abuse. They wanted to tell the government that their resources to support these youths are stretched to the limits. It is critical that youth be admitted to shelter as soon as possible. They said:

"Given how many youth have already been turned away from support services" -- as a direct result of actions of this government -- "such as emergency shelters, I'm here to put out a compassionate request that you take into consideration that...our youth, who do not have access to references, to first and last months' rent, to the use of credit cards, and who are renting for the first time, will not be excluded."

Silence, deafening silence. Unfortunately then as now, I can tell, the government and the government committee members did not listen.

Finally, let me refer the members of this House to the presentation of the Kensington Youth Theatre and Employment Skills program, or KYTES. This group serves youths 16 to 24 years old who have primarily lived on the streets or in shelters. This group has tried to help them make a transition towards full participation in our society. KYTES came to the hearing to appeal to the members of the committee because they have a concern about the central importance of stable housing in the lives of troubled young people. They had a real concern about access to affordable rental conditions. They said to the committee:

"Every young person who goes out at one point, whether to leave home or with parents' okay or whether they leave home with parents' curses, is going to be facing new apartments. They're going to be the first ones with the fewest resources on average and they're going to be, quite frankly, sons and daughters of people around this room. Whether you can supply them with cash or not, lots of other young people are going to be striding out there without a shot at a decent place."

It's absolutely mind-boggling that this government, the members of this government and the members of the committee, refused, absolutely refused to hear the words of the representatives of youth in Ontario.

For the reasons I've outlined prior, for the reasons and the voices I heard during the by-election in Oriole, I am absolutely delighted to have stood with our leader, Dalton McGuinty, and have announced that a Liberal government will scrap Bill 96 and restore real tenant protection in Ontario. Thank you very much.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): It is a pleasure to be able to speak on the opposition day motion in the name of Mr Duncan. It makes reference to Bill 96, the so-called Tenant Protection Act. It refers to the provisions of that bill. It says that this bill is going to gut rent controls in Ontario, raise tenants' rents, make it easier to demolish their homes, and that it's only part of the Conservative government's attack on affordable housing here in Ontario. That is something I agree with. That's what this bill does.

It calls itself a Tenant Protection Act, but we know that this is another example of Tory legislation that says one thing in the title but within the body of the legislation means something completely different. It's quite obvious that this isn't a bill that is going to protect tenants; this is really a bill that is going to protect landlords. It's going to protect the big-money friends of the provincial Progressive Conservative government: landlords, developers. Those are the people who are going to be protected by this bill. This has been something that has been brought up time and time again at the committee hearings by representative after representative.

This government says they are listening -- ha. We've made the point over and over again that this is a government that is moving too far, too fast and in the wrong direction and that they are not listening. People are saying that they don't want this pace of change, they don't want this direction, and hopefully this is a government that is listening.

We've seen them take some steps after they've listened recently with respect to Bill 136. But if they were listening to tenants in this province they would withdraw Bill 96 and restore or ensure that tenants receive the protection of the rent control bill that the NDP government brought in when they were in government. That was legislation that was brought in by the then Minister of Housing, Dave Cooke I think it was, the member for Windsor-Riverside, as a matter of fact.

Part of the reason he introduced the legislation that he did was because Windsor-Riverside is an area made up of a great number of tenants. They live in places like Seaway Tower, Bayview Towers, in apartment buildings along Wyandotte Street East and also in an area known as Meadowbrook near Lauzon and Tecumseh Road.

During the by-election campaign that ended on September 4 I had an opportunity to speak to many tenants in those buildings and they expressed to me their concerns about what may happen if this Bill 96 passes. Many of them were seniors, people who were on fixed incomes, single moms, people who were having a difficult time paying the rent as it was but thought that landlords were going to try and take steps to get them to leave their homes so they could boost the rents up and rent to someone else.

1600

We'll see an escalation of rents in areas like Windsor-Riverside so that people who are unable to afford the rent after it goes up will be faced with the choice of not having a place to live. That's basically the choice they're going to have. What is it they would be able to do?

During the by-election campaign tenants especially and electors generally make up their minds about what they felt about Bill 96, the Tenant Protection Act, and they voted no to that bill. It was an easy choice for them. They recognized this was a bill that was only going to help developers; it wasn't going to help tenants. They said no to Mike Harris' rent control bill, and they were faced then with the choice between supporting a Liberal candidate or an NDP candidate.

They, of course, supported the NDP because they remember back before 1990 when the Liberal rent control bill was in place. They remember the double-digit rent increases that took place then. They recall that financing costs were going to be able to be passed through to landlords who flipped their buildings over and over again. They recognized there was no prohibition on increasing rents for landlords who didn't maintain or improve their buildings. They remembered the useless luxury renovations that were done and new appliances that were purchased so that the rents would be able to be escalated artificially. They remember that sort of rent control that was in place under the Liberal government in the past.

If I have any concern with respect to the resolution that is before us today, it's the Liberal leader, Dalton McGuinty's commitment to replace Bill 96 with meaningful rent control. If Dalton McGuinty is saying meaningful rent control meaning the rent control they had in place during the Liberal government before 1990 -- and I hope that's not what they mean -- that's not something the NDP members here are going to be able to support. I really hope we can get some clarification with respect to that.

I do share the concerns of the Liberal members, and I'm sure my colleagues, with respect to Bill 96 and how this is going to hurt tenants in Ontario. I'm happy I've been given this opportunity to speak on behalf of tenants here in their opposition to Bill 96.

Mr Harry Danford (Hastings-Peterborough): It's also my pleasure to participate in today's opposition day debate on rent control. Since our election in June 1995, our government has undertaken a lengthy study of this issue and our goal is twofold: It is to make the rent control system fairer for the tenants and to increase the amount of rental stock that is available in Ontario.

It's important that we look at the state of rental accommodation in Ontario today. Over 60% of existing housing stock is 25 years old or more and this proportion is expected to grow, as there have been fewer additions to the rental stock since the late 1970s.

I would like to also add that the building of new rental accommodation has almost ground to a halt, with only 37 new rental units coming on the market in Toronto last year. Across Ontario private investment in new rental housing has declined to a very low level. From an average of over 26,000 units annually in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, private rental starts have declined to fewer than 2,000 annually in the past few years.

This has led to a tightening of the vacancy rate in many Ontario rental markets. For example, the vacancy rate in Toronto is less than 1%; to be precise it is 0.8% and it's expected to decline. However, in other markets such as Ottawa an oversupply in the rental housing market has meant landlords actually offer incentives such as gifts or even as much as three free months' rent to entice tenants into their buildings.

What rental stock is available is in need of some pretty major repairs. We found this through the consultations, and it was voiced by many people who participated: the deterioration of the concrete balconies; certainly the garages were in a deplorable state. In fact, a tenants' survey done by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. concludes that 11% of the rental buildings need substantial work. An estimate by the Fair Rental Policy Organization puts the current cost of repairing major structural problems at $10 billion. It was clear that something had to be done.

In 1996 the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing released a white paper on rent that formed the basis for committee hearings last summer. Our committee travelled around the province hearing many different views and certainly many different opinions. Tenants and landlords alike from across the province told us that the current rent control system needs to be fixed.

Tenants feel that the system is too confusing, that buildings are poorly maintained and that they already pay too much rent. While they like the protection provided by the current rent control system and in fact would even like an even stricter system, they know that many changes are needed to fix problems in maintenance, rental vacancies and the dispute resolution system. Landlords and developers also know the system is broken, and will not invest in new rental housing unless it is changed and the rules are loosened.

We need to find a compromise, and I believe that Bill 96 does that. Using the results of the committee hearings, the minister drafted the present tenant protection legislation, Bill 96. We believe the current system of rent control does not work for landlords or tenants and needs to be fixed. The housing stock is run down and maintenance is poor. The system is too complex for both tenants and landlords. No one is served well by the current system.

Our bill will continue to make sure that tenants are protected against unfair rent increases. The current rent control guideline formula for sitting tenants will be retained. Increases above the guideline will be capped at 4% for capital expenditures. Tenants will be able to make rent reduction applications for situations such as the withdrawal of services by a landlord, serious maintenance problems. An amendment adopted at the committee will make automatic a rent reduction due to an extraordinary decrease in operating costs as a result of the changes that could be effected by a decrease in municipal taxes, one of the problems that was clearly mentioned at many of the hearings.

Also during those hearings, we heard that tenants wanted maintenance provisions improved. We have given property standards officers more powers to have a property inspected by a qualified expert when an owner does not provide sufficient information. Our system gives landlords incentive to invest in their buildings and is tough on those who don't take care of them. If landlords don't do needed repairs, the fines will be tougher, and the enforcement of the fines will be easier to impose.

Tenants told us they wanted security of tenure and to maintain existing rights and responsibilities. No changes will be made to the reasons for evictions or formal notice periods for most tenancies. A tenant cannot be evicted except for certain reasons as set out in the legislation. Bill 96 has stronger provisions to prohibit landlords from harassing tenants as well. The package contains an increase in the maximum fines given to landlords who do harass and an enforcement unit will be established to investigate and lay charges in harassment cases.

For the first time, landlords and tenants can negotiate the rent charged on vacant units. By giving tenants and landlords the power to negotiate the amount of rent charged when a vacant unit is re-rented, the proposed tenant protection package allows the markets to set rents and encourages active participation in the process.

We set out to change the current rent control system so it was easier to understand and not as costly. Currently we pay approximately $18 million to run a system that doesn't work well. Our new system will be cheaper, faster, and above all, fairer. It's a system that both tenants and landlords can understand and will produce results quickly. Under Bill 96, landlord-tenant disputes will be moved out of the courts and through an administrative body to streamline the dispute process.

Our tenant protection package protects tenants from unfair rent increases and evictions without just cause. It improves apartment maintenance and is tough on landlords who don't take care of their buildings. It encourages people to build rental real estate and it streamlines the administration and cuts the red tape.

We have a package which we believe is better for both the landlord and the tenant. During our consultations the message was very clear: that the present legislation was not working. With the implementation of Bill 96, we will have a tenant protection package that we believe will improve the quality of housing needs in Ontario.

1610

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to stand in this House today and speak on the motion moved by my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville. Rent control is a matter affecting real lives and real people in a very significant way. Today we are dealing with a basic human need, the need for shelter.

Rental shelter is a very important issue not only in my riding of Ottawa West, as I can affirm from the recent by-election, but in the region of Ottawa-Carleton as well. Rental housing is about 46% of all the housing in Ottawa-Carleton and the highest proportion of any city in Ontario. It includes over 120,000 dwellings, home to over 300,000 people in the region -- men, women and children -- who are tenants. Of the 33,000 homes in my own riding, over half, 56% or 18,000 units, are rentals. They are home to seniors, young families and single mothers. These are people largely from low-income categories who cannot afford the changes being proposed by the government's new rent control legislation, Bill 96.

Housing affordability is an important issue in Ottawa-Carleton, particularly for tenants. Between 1990 and 1995, according to CMHC, average rents increased in Ottawa-Carleton between 16% and 20%, depending on unit type, all within legal rent control limits. Yet at the same time the consumer price index increased by only 12.8%. Further, the number of tenants with housing affordability problems, defined as paying 30% or more of their gross annual income on shelter, has steadily increased in the region since 1981, from about 25% of all-tenant households to nearly 29% in 1991.

Of all the households in Ottawa-Carleton with housing affordability problems, nearly two thirds are rental households. For those who had to pay more than 50% of their income on shelter, nearly three quarters were tenants. Further, about three quarters of the social assistance recipients in Ottawa-Carleton live in private-market housing, making up 40%, or 39,000 households, in private rental housing. Affordability clearly is a problem here in Ottawa-Carleton, particularly given this government's 21.6% cut in welfare rates.

To underline the problem, Ottawa-Carleton also has its share of people living below the poverty line. I use the example of Statistics Canada's low-income cutoffs. Ottawa-Carleton's share of poverty comes to about 94,000 people, according to the 1991 census, or nearly a third of the renting population. This means that for a low-income individual, a person who would be receiving, say, $14,000 as an annual income, his or her affordable monthly rent would be $350; for a couple whose annual income was $19,000, the affordable monthly rent would be about $480 or less; and for a four-person low-income family with an annual income of about $28,000, the affordable monthly rent would be $700 or less. Considering that one-bedroom apartments in Ottawa-Carleton start at $600 a month, this means that most of the 94,000 low-income people in Ottawa-Carleton, who are overwhelmingly renters, have a housing affordability problem.

Recently the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton published a series of staff reports on housing in the region. These reports state that there's clearly a crisis in rental housing in Ottawa-Carleton. The problem lies with affordability of rental housing, not in land supply. Ottawa-Carleton has over 3,000 hectares of available urban land capable of supporting 89,000 residential units. Regional staff project that 5,700 residential units will be required each year from 1996 to the year 2011, and 46%, or about 2,600, will be new rental units. The question is how to achieve affordability of this housing. Unfortunately the provisions contained in the government's Bill 96 go in the wrong direction.

The primary problem is vacancy decontrol. This is the government's proposal that when a rental unit is vacated, the landlord will negotiate the incoming tenant's rent without regulatory restrictions. Rent control guidelines will apply once the unit has been re-rented to the new tenant. However, the government's own studies show that each year between 20% and 25% of tenants move and that within five years 70% of rental housing will have changed tenants, therefore changing rents. This means that under the government's Bill 96, rent control is effectively ended for most of the rental market over a relatively short time. To compound the problem, rent controls will not apply to any new rental housing construction. Simply put, tenants in Ottawa-Carleton, as well as the rest of the province, can't afford this.

Tenants move for all kinds of reasons, not all of them voluntary, and the effect of these proposals would exacerbate an already difficult affordability problem for renters in Ottawa-Carleton. Lifting rent controls as apartments vacate, which is the Harris government's plan, provides no protection for an historically mobile and vulnerable population, particularly those with modest and low incomes. It sentences renters to their apartments and provides incentives to landlords to turn over the tenants in their units to achieve market rents. This will certainly create additional stress to the landlord-tenant relationship, particularly as repairs and service maintenance become negotiable under the government's proposals.

Another problem with the Harris plan for rent controls is what paying for repairs and maintenance does to tenants. Currently the rent control guideline is set at about 2.8% in excess of inflation, which is running at less that 2%. Part of the government's justification for the larger figure is to finance repairs and maintenance. If this was honestly so, then these funds would be directed to capital reserves for these purposes and such expenditures financed from those reserves. This would ensure transparency and integrity to the rent increase and should cover the 4% rent increase for major capital expenditures as well.

Yet Bill 96 removes the requirement for the calculation of capital expenditures to be adjusted for costs no longer borne. This means that rent increases to pay for specific improvements will continue indefinitely, creating a windfall rent increase to the landlord in excess of what it was originally granted for. This is simply unjustifiable. You ought not to pay twice or more for the same thing. To retain this feature in this bill is grossly unfair to tenants and clearly shows the Harris government's bias.

The bad news for tenants continues in Mike Harris's Ontario. In Bill 96 the ability for tenants to claim rent rebates for inadequate maintenance and to freeze rent increases when there is an outstanding civic property standards order on the property has been abolished, despite the fact that it has been very effective in resolving outstanding repairs. The government attempts in this bill to offer a sop to tenants by increasing fines for landlord harassment, but it won't help tenants much.

First, it requires a considerable effort and investment by the tenant to initiate such a case. In fact, few cases are ever initiated under the currently existing legislation. Second, it is already difficult to prove intent. Third, the fines awarded under this section have been historically insignificant. Fourth, it simply creates a business case for the landlord who wishes to turn over his or her building to achieve market rents. It is truly an empty gesture and, when combined with the government's proposal to establish a new anti-harassment enforcement unit, clearly shows it was designed to compensate for vacancy decontrol and merely highlights the problems that vacancy decontrol will create for existing tenants.

Bill 96 changes the focus of tenant protection legislation from protecting tenants' access to affordable units to protecting tenants only when they're lucky enough to be in an affordable unit. It protects the sitting tenant, not rental units. It is quite frankly wrong, as the loss of affordable and accessible rental housing reduces choice and exacerbates an already difficult renting situation in Ottawa-Carleton.

Conversion of rental housing to local ownership has been a major factor in the loss of affordable rental housing in Ottawa-Carleton in recent years. We have lost over 5,000 town homes from our rental stock between 1989 and 1994. Renovations are not the issue here, as one of the previous members alluded to, as Ottawa-Carleton's housing stock is relatively young, with over 87% built since 1946, nearly a quarter since 1981. According to the 1991 census, only about 6% of our housing stock is in need of major repairs.

1620

If there's anything in this bill that clearly shows the government's ignorance, to put it charitably, of the real world many tenants live in, particularly those on low incomes, it's the new provision that violates the human rights of tenants by permitting landlords to ask for income-related information as part of the rental application. The rule that will come into play is that rent should not exceed 30% of anyone's gross income, instead of simply ability to pay. Yet, as I said earlier, in Ottawa-Carleton nearly 30% of renters fall within that category. That's 90,000 people. How can this government put their shelter at risk like this?

This is why Bill 96 must be scrapped. It creates hardships for tenants, it bleeds rent control to death unit by unit and it makes a mockery of tenant protection. It doesn't protect tenants from higher rents and it does reduce the supply of affordable rental housing. It's a bad piece of legislation and, as the tenants of Ottawa West have clearly told me in a recent by-election, it must go.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I am pleased to have a short time to be able to speak to this motion by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I want to speak first to some other matters that I think pertain to this motion and then get to the bill. On any given night here in Metropolitan Toronto, particularly Toronto -- because as you know, in North York they don't have any homeless people at all; we heard that from the mayor-to-be -- we have approximately 5,000 people who have no place to call home. Some of these men and women sleep in shelters, in hostels, in church basements, in air vents that are hot obviously, in bus shelters, under the Gardiner Expressway. That's in my riding and I see them all the time as I drive down Bathurst. Sometimes these people die of exposure. They do die.

Until now, we used to have governments, provincial and federal, that provided money for hundreds and thousands of low-income people, who sometimes join the ranks of the homeless. I think by the pressure put on governments over a long period of time they have taken on the role and social responsibility to build housing stock that is able to house the homeless and also people on low income, and there are many in this province and in this city.

Now, whereas governments used to build homes and also provide subsidies, we see these guys, this government, pass laws and policies that reduce the affordable and accessible housing stock and in fact make it impossible to construct private apartment buildings in some ways, although these people claim they're going to help out.

In Metropolitan Toronto they're scrambling to deal with the housing crisis that this government is throwing us in. They are being dumped on with the responsibility for social housing, the Metro housing authority, the Metro housing company, non-profit homes, co-ops. They're given that responsibility now to deal with the crisis. Frankly, I don't think they know what they're going to do, because the money isn't there. It's a crisis that is being brought to the municipalities across Ontario, but in particular in Metro, by the federal Liberal government and by these people over here, these other guys, these Tory types over here, who are the other major disaster for people looking for affordable homes.

If you look at the federal Liberal government, what have they done? They have frozen their contribution to public housing to the rates of 1995-96, and indeed they no longer build or help to build affordable housing. In fact, these fine Liberals at the federal level are getting out of the housing field. They don't want any more responsibility for housing. They're trying to sign some deals, as they already have done with Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, the Northwest Territories and Newfoundland. They've got deals with these people, because they want to get out of the housing field -- no different than these Tories. That's the Liberals at the federal level -- hostile governments against people who are in serious need of help.

These Tories are driving people out of work, because they're firing the entire civil service, impoverishing a hell of a lot of people, and through their policies we see people descending from a level of middle class to the lower levels of poverty. Hostile governments, both federal Liberals and provincial Tories, these fine people over here.

At one time we used to build a lot of housing through measures of the federal and provincial governments. Now that's no longer the case. The case is of a government to have a social responsibility to deal with social need, but these people over there are abandoning social need. For them it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. Witness the new Planning Act of Ontario, which they have repealed, the one that we had introduced, that prevents municipalities from having basement apartments. It was a little measure that would allow some of these homeowners who want to rent out a basement to do themselves a favour, because some of these homeowners are in trouble, they need help. So they thought, "How can we do something that's good for us but also good for those who are looking for affordable housing?" These Tories have abandoned that kind of social need.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Because they're in bed with the big developers.

Mr Marchese: They're in bed with the big developers. We knew that. We talk about this every day, but I'll get to that because there's some time to speak about that.

You heard the member for Hastings-Peterborough. He says that the design of this bill is to make it fair to tenants. He was in the committee hearings. Bruce, he was there. Do you remember? I was there all the time. He says there are two motives: to make it fair -- and he said tenants -- and to increase the rental stock.

I want to spend a few moments that I've got again to expose the duplicitous nature of these statements and this bill. The title of this bill was the tenant protection bill. That's why I say the duplicitous nature of the bill.

Mr Kormos: Hey, you're pulling my leg.

Mr Marchese: No, I'm not pulling your leg. They've got hundreds of thousands of dollars of public money that they spend to come up with titles like that: the tenant protection package.

Mr Kormos: But it's not true. The title's a lie.

Mr Marchese: It belies the truth. Of course it does. I was in committee where 70% to 75% of the people who were there said: "Keep rent control that the NDP put in place. Keep it there." But I heard the member for Hastings-Peterborough. He said that the tenants said that the system needs to be fixed. I don't know where he's coming from. I was there. I was there for the tenant protection discussion, which was not yet a bill. For three or four weeks we dealt with that, the same stuff. Then they reintroduced it; the same title, the tenant protection bill, and they said tenants say that the system is broken and needs to be fixed. They didn't say that. The landlords said the system is broken. Why doesn't he say that? I'd much prefer that he say that. Then I would feel better. But to say that the tenants didn't like rent control belies the truth.

It's part of the job of the opposition, those of us who heard tenants, those organizations that deal with tenant matters, individuals and organizations, 70% of all those people who came in front of the committee said, "Keep rent control in place."

Interjections.

Mr Marchese: The people who disagreed with that were three types: Tories -- I'm not sure; that fellow at the back says, "This is a joke." I think he was at the meeting too. What's his name? Oh, Martiniuk, Cambridge. I don't know what the heck you're saying about --

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: My friend has referred to a survey. He said 70% of the tenants surveyed suggested -- I would like a copy of that. I think, pursuant to the rules, if he refers to it --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Cambridge, sorry, that can't be considered a point of order.

Mr Martiniuk: He referred to it.

The Acting Speaker: You can't correct the record. If you don't agree with him, that's one thing. You'll have an opportunity perhaps later.

1630

Mr Marchese: The fellow says that either I was a joke or what I said was a joke, so I had to refer to him. He's the member for Cambridge, Mr Martiniuk, who said that whatever I said was a joke. I think he was either in those committees or he may have attended some. I said for his own recollection and for clarity that 70% of all the people who came were tenants or tenant organizations or organizations that deal with tenants. He obviously wasn't listening when I said that.

Mr Kormos: He is paid to listen.

Mr Marchese: But they say they're listening; that's the bloody problem. They say they're listening all the time to what people have to say, that they bring bills out so that people can respond to them, and presumably once they've responded they would listen. Good Lord, this is one example out of so many where we know these guys haven't listened.

It is an embarrassment to have these people -- and M. Harris, mon ami the Premier, stands there too with a straight face every day. He was talking about education and how concerned he is and he's putting money back into the classroom, in fact more I think. He doesn't want to take responsibility for being in government for the last two and a half years and continues to blame others for any problem he is facing. But with a straight face he and the Minister of Labour -- the Minister of Labour, she has a straight face, I can tell you. The Premier today stands there with apparent sincerity to say what he's doing for education. I have to admit the guy was a teacher too. He was a teacher. I have to admit I was a teacher as well, so I have some insights into the field. But to hear him speak, you wondered what he was teaching. Anyway, we won't get into all the details about what he was doing when he was teaching math; I think he was a math teacher.

Mr Kormos: No.

Mr Marchese: Yes, he was.

This bill has nothing to do with fairness, I can tell you that. A lot of people who came to that committee scoffed at the title of the bill and scoffed at what is contained within the bill because there is nothing in there for them, nothing whatsoever. So let's dismiss that and get on to the other matter of increasing rental stock, because that's the other issue these poor folks talk about.

A lot of people who came to the committee, including a representative from Norquay Homes, told the legislative committee last summer, "If the goal of this legislation is to get people like me back constructing residential rental suites, it will fail miserably."

Mr Kormos: This guy is a builder?

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): One of the Tories' friends.

Mr Marchese: It's not one of my friends; it's one of theirs.

Now Phil Dewan, head of the Fair Rental Policy Organization of Ontario, the main landlord lobby group, says the new legislation won't get landlords to build either, presumably because this bill doesn't go far enough. I suspect that's what he meant. So your friends in the building industry are saying, "This ain't going to get me to build."

So you've got two things the member for Hastings-Peterborough said are the intent of this bill, and it doesn't achieve either of the two. What's going on? It's for that reason that I talk about the duplicitous nature of the bill. There is an inherent lack of clarity in the bill, in the title. But the title should alert people to the problem in the bill.

In terms of getting to construct, M. Lampert, your buddy you hired -- well paid too -- said that we've got a problem here, that there's a gap between what the cost is to construct versus what people can afford. He says to overcome that gap you've got to do some things. He says -- and he attaches a price to each and every one of these things -- you've got to reduce development charges, and the price for that is $355. Remember, the gap is $3,000 between building and what people can afford to pay in a rental accommodation. So you've got to reduce development charges. You've got to equalize property taxes. You've got to cut in half the GST payable, streamline regulations on building, halve the CMHC mortgage insurance fee, lower the administration due to reform of rent regulations, by which he means this bill, the deregulation, the decontrolling of rents; that's only $200 out of the $3,000 gap. Then he says you've got to eliminate provincial capital tax. Do you see all that you have to do?

This, I remind you, is at the provincial level, because at the municipal level there are a whole lot of other things you've got to do, such as interest-free second mortgages, such as land leases, free land or delayed payment for the land.

Mr Kormos: This is a big developer?

Mr Marchese: To get these guys to build. Reductions in municipal charges and regulations, mortgage guarantees, zoning bonuses. Peter Kormos, my good buddy the member for Welland-Thorold, do you see what we've got to do to get these people to build? That's what this government wants us to do. They want to get out of the housing field. You'll recall that when these people got elected they said, "We're getting out of the housing field." They say, "We want to do that because we want the private sector to get into it." Ha; to get into it. They're not going to build. Norquay Homes, as one example only, said, "We're not going to build."

How are you going to get them to build? Well, you've got to get out the moola, the pecunia, from the public purse and give it to these guys. Is that what you think we should do? Do you think it's fair to dig into my public purse that senior citizens have to pay into? Low-income people, the middle class who are descending quickly into poverty, they've got to pay so they can get developers to build. I say no; I say that's bad public policy. I say that if you've got to give so much to the private developer to build, it is better that we as a government hold on to the capital by building than to give it away at cheap prices so the private sector can build and own those buildings. It's better, because then that capital remains yours; then you as a government are able to control that housing so that you can give proper, adequate, affordable, accessible homes to people who need them, people who are disabled. We know 15% of the population suffers from a disability of sorts. We need governments to be able to provide for such things as people with a disability.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: M. Bisson, mon ami, va-t-en, va-t-en. Someone has got to take care of them, otherwise there will be no one who will take care of them, because I tell you market forces are not there to take care of social need; they do not respond to social need.

I said to one of these developers who came, "If you are not going to build because it's too costly for you, who's going to look after them?" He said, "It's not my problem; it's the government's problem." I said, "The Tories say it's not their problem either; they're getting out." "Well," he said.

So you see we've got a big problem: These folks here are getting out of the housing field; their buddies, with the deep pockets going deep into the ground, are saying, "We can't afford it." Who is left to address issues of the social need? There's nobody there.

Mr Kormos: What about co-op housing?

Mr Marchese: Co-op housing was something the New Democratic Party introduced as a communal way of living which built, which brings together people of various incomes and people of various ethnicities and linguistic and racial backgrounds. People with disabilities, people with AIDS, for example, are taken care of in that kind of communal living. Do you think your private developer friends are going to worry about the person with a disability or HIV? They're not interested in that.

Mr Kormos: What did the Tories say to co-op housing?

Mr Marchese: The Tories said when they came in: "Billion-dollar programs, we're going to give them away to the municipality, and you're on your own, municipalities. We're not doing it any more." That's what they said and they're doing it now.

1640

They cancelled a lot of projects, non-profit and cooperative homes that would properly have dealt with the needs we have of a lot of people to be housed. They said no; they cancelled the deals. Of course they're still in courts over that matter, but they cancelled them. We've got a housing crisis in this province and these people want to get out of the field.

Mr Kormos: That's nuts.

Mr Marchese: It's nuts, as Mel Lastman would say. It's a nutty thing. Nobody with a sane mind would introduce such policies when they know that poverty is rampant, that we have a housing crisis. These people, as Mel Lastman would say, they're nuts.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Except that Mel's got a problem.

Mr Marchese: Except Mel's got a problem. On the one hand he's right in terms of the expression he used; on the other hand, the guy says there's no homelessness in his part of the world. Come on. Sure, it's great for Mel to say, "This is a city with a heart, but we send all of our poor people down to Toronto" -- right? -- "where they have the housing, shelters, where they have put in money for the social need." But Mel doesn't have those problems. He ships them down to Barbara Hall, says, "Here, Barbara, you take care of them."

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): St Barbara, eh?

Mr Marchese: We've got Mr Colle here supporting Mel Lastman, and I know he's going to speak to this bill. Maybe Mike Colle, the member for Oakwood, wants to talk about Mel Lastman's issue of homelessness. Anyway, that's another matter.

I want to quote Professor Hulchanski who says this:

"A market fails when supply and demand do not and cannot function normally. We have had market failure in the residential rental market in Ontario for more than two decades. Changing a set of regulations enacted in response to market failure does nothing to address the underlying macroeconomic dynamics causing the problem.

"When there is inadequate market demand and thus little new supply in the rental housing sector, vacancy rates remain low and tenants require adequate regulations to provide some degree of balance" -- which is what the NDP tried to do to restore that balance we didn't have. These people come, sit with a big, fat body -- right? Not fat body; I take that back, Madam Speaker -- with a great deal of heaviness sit on that balance, on that see-saw, and shift the whole weight around.

"The problem," Professor Hulchanski says, "once again, is that construction of new private sector rental apartment buildings is not economically viable. This is why last year 96% of Ontario's housing starts were for homeowners. Homeowners in the province have enough income and wealth to generate market demand for housing; most renters in the province do not have the income to generate market demand in either the rental or ownership sector."

That's really the argument. I don't know what these guys want to say. You hear all the balderdash, the nonsense that comes from there. How can you believe the nonsense? This is my worry. My worry is that there are a lot of people who I think believe the nonsense, and that's why we need to expose the problem.

Professor Hulchanski makes the point again that the Conservative government brought in rent control in 1975 and had no choice but to respond to the market crisis with regulations. Let me tell you some points so that it's clear. He says, "Private rental starts fell from a peak of about 40,000 per year in 1972 to a few thousand in 1975." That was prior to the rent control introduced by the then Conservative government. It was prior to 1975 when rent control was brought in by these other people, who at least at that time had some consciousness, what they call red Tory types. These people have lost that. "Ontario's consumer price index climbed dramatically throughout the 1970s, peaking at close to 12% in 1981, and interest rates reaching 21% in August 1981." The market was failing us and the government responded to that particular problem. That's why these Tories introduced rent control at the time.

Let me get to some quick matters, before I pass it on to my other colleagues as well, in terms of what this bill does that isn't helping tenants. First, it decontrols rents. It is a form of the abolition of rent control as we know it. What does it mean? It means that as soon as you leave your apartment, somebody coming in will be charged a higher rate of rent than the person who was in that apartment before, any amount, M. Turnbull, that the landlord could get, could squeeze out of the tenant. Then they say rent control kicks in again.

But the real difficulty is that decontrolling mechanism. That's when the landlord can charge what he wants, and in a tight market such as Toronto anything goes -- not just Toronto; Metro Toronto. That means any landlord who can squeeze as much as he can out of those poor-income people will do so.

I remind you that 30% of all people who rent, and there are 3.2 million, earn less than $22,000. That's a lot. These are the people who are going to be hurt by the policies of this reptilian government. These are the people who are going to be hurt by those policies, and not just those 30% who have a low income, but imagine the next sector of a population in that rental market. How much could they be making, Peter, $25,000, $30,000 maybe? It still means that these people have to spend most of their money, more than 30%. In some cases some of these people are spending 50% to 70% of their income on rent alone, let alone other needs that we have as human beings to clothe, to feed and to do some other little things any other normal person with a decent salary can do.

They're after low-paid people. They're after people who on the meagre sum they might receive from social assistance will have to pay more to support a transference of wealth from the poor to those landlords who already have money. It is an utter shame that any government could stand up and say, "The scope of this bill, the intent, is to make it fair and to increase the rental stock." It is a shame. That has nothing to do with anything this bill does, which will hurt so many people.

This bill also says that if you are not moving, you're safe. But you're not. The guideline for next year will be 3%. You could increase for capital repairs by another 3% at the moment, but it goes up by 1% more. That's a 1% increase if you are a sitting duck and not moving, with the inclusion now under this bill of paying for hydro and taxes. I tell you the taxes will go up, inevitably, because of the download of this government to those poor municipalities to pay for the problems. There's so much in this bill, I want to move on as quickly as I can.

Costs no longer borne will no longer be withdrawn from the rent. That means tenants will pay, for example, for a new fridge while continuing to pay for the old one to support the poor landlord who's not making a good living. I'm talking about the big landlord. I'm not talking about the man or woman or the widow who owns a house and rents a little apartment or basement. I'm not talking about them. They're not talking about them. This bill is designed to support the landlord who's got 20 apartments. That's what we're talking about, 20 apartments, the big corporation, the big landlord who's got a big, deep pocket to support himself. They want to transfer all this wealth, more wealth to these people and take away from those other poor folk who can't afford it.

There's a lot more to say but I know my colleagues want to speak to this. Those who are watching this station, and I know there are more and more of you, you've got to fight back and protect a way of life that is being destroyed by this reptilian government.

1650

Mr Carl DeFaria (Mississauga East): It is a pleasure to join this debate today. I would like to tell the House that the reason I decided to join this debate is because of the package that was introduced under Bill 96. I am not one who is known to be trumpeting every package or every policy that is put forward in this House, but Bill 96 provides a comprehensive protection package for tenants in Ontario and, at the same time, allows for development and construction of new housing stock --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Really?

Mr DeFaria: -- and renovation of decaying, vacant buildings in our major urban centres.

I know the member across from Scarborough North just interjected and said, "Really?" I'm sure he does not advocate the status quo. I remember the member on June 21, 1991, indicating that: "Bill 121" -- the NDP rent control bill -- "does not in any way protect tenants or landlords. It hurts both landlords and tenants. It does not provide funds that are needed to complete the necessary repairs in the province's aging rental housing." I'm sure the member recalls his statement in this House.

Bill 96 accomplishes a balance between the protection of tenants and the need for new rental housing stock. But I'd like, first of all, to talk about the input and the submissions we received during the hearings we held across the province. I was, together with the member for Fort York, in Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Ottawa, and we heard groups making submissions. We heard some tenants, but I can tell you that the majority of people who spoke before us were legal clinic lawyers.

I recall some 20 years ago working in a legal clinic, at Parkdale Legal Clinic, as a law student. I recall the lawyers in the clinic were supposed to handle cases for low-income people, help them with their problems in court. Those lawyers spent the majority of their time advocating changes and lobbying the government and advocating things that are in the purview of elected people.

But those were the majority of people who appeared before us, and they submitted almost identical submissions. Some of them travelled with us in the plane from town to town as we were travelling in committee, I'm sure at taxpayers' cost, which is quite unacceptable. There were a few tenants, a lot of them brought in by some of these groups, but the ones who came on their own were the best ones and the ones who made some useful suggestions and comments.

The major comment that was made to us by every presenter was that there was a need for change, that the act was an old act that needed to be overhauled.

Mr Marchese: It did not.

Mr DeFaria: I heard members across saying, "It did not."

Mr Marchese: Tenants didn't want a change; you know that, Carl.

Mr DeFaria: The member for Fort York says tenants didn't want to change. I'd like to quote someone who said: "Many people assume that rent control is there to protect lower-income tenants in the units that they rent. In fact, it is the upper-income tenants who get the most benefits."

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Was that a friend of the NDP?

Mr DeFaria: That was John Sewell --

Mr Gilchrist: Oh, a big friend of the NDP.

Mr DeFaria: -- who said that on Studio 2, TVO, in an interview. So obviously people wanted change.

Mr Gilchrist: That's a start.

Mr DeFaria: That's a direct quote from his statement.

Some of the changes that were made --

Interjections.

Mr DeFaria: I again hear people on the Liberal side talking about no need for change. I'd like to remind them of the Liberal red book that says, "Within our first year in office, we will simplify the existing system and streamline it to provide better service to tenants and landlords." This is again a statement that indicated there needed to be changes, and that's exactly what we have done.

One of the comments we heard, for example, that was a useful comment was regarding the need to provide a requirement for municipalities to notify tenants when there has been a tax decrease so that tenants could then enforce their right under the act to have a decrease in rent. We have provided that in section 127, where we have mandated municipalities to notify tenants in residential complexes any time there has been a decrease in the taxes for their unit so that they can receive an abatement in their rent. This is a fundamental right, and it's a right that will expand the power that municipalities have so that they can use different rates to assess apartments so that tenants can benefit, because any lower municipal taxes will result in savings to tenants under this bill.

But let's look at Bill 96 and see how it strikes a fair balance between protection of tenants and the stimulation of construction and the economy. My friend the member for Fort York knows very well that a lot of his constituents are construction workers and a lot of them are small landlords and small people. This bill does a lot for them.

Part II and part III of Bill 96, if you look at them, are almost identical to the existing Landlord and Tenant Act, mainly part IV of the Landlord and Tenant Act. It protects every single right that is there in the Landlord and Tenant Act and provides tenants with security of tenure. For example, section 24 of the bill provides for repair, requires the landlord to repair the premises to comply with property standards laws.

Mr Curling: That's new.

Mr DeFaria: It's there, and now even if the tenant is aware of these violations, of property standards violations, he can require the landlord to comply with them, and this protects the tenants and prevents slum landlords and slum-residence conditions.

Sections 37, 39, 44 and 45 of the act, the provisions for notice requirements and grounds for terminating a lease, are exactly the same as in the existing Landlord and Tenant Act.

Section 70 prohibits a landlord from evicting tenants without obtaining an eviction order and also provides that the tribunal has the discretion to refuse to evict a tenant unless it's unfair to refuse such an order. So there are all kinds of protections provided for tenants under this bill.

Section 52, which is the condo conversion, goes further in protecting tenants from being evicted when a property, a rental unit, is being converted into a condo.

1700

Let's look at the provisions of rent control under this bill. Part VI of the bill continues rent control for every existing tenancy agreement in Ontario. Every single agreement in existence today is protected under this bill. Sections 114 and 121 provide that for every existing tenancy agreement today and for any rental stock existing today, once an initial rent is in place, rent control stays.

So what is the change and why is the change necessary? In order to stimulate construction of new rental stock, create construction jobs and renovate the decaying, vacant buildings which are becoming very noticeable in some large cities such as Toronto, section 4 of Bill 96 partially exempts any newly built residential complexes from rent control. These are rental units that have not been built yet, that have not been built in the past few years because of rent control.

Mr Curling: Really?

Mr DeFaria: That's correct. These are rental units that do not exist today and will not exist tomorrow but for this exception. This exception does not hurt any tenant at all, because a tenant of today may not be a tenant by the time those new units come into the market, unless my friends across don't believe in the Canadian dream that I believe in and that everyone who came to this country is a part of.

What is the problem? The problem is the status quo. I'll quote some statistics on deregulation in some jurisdictions where it took place. This is about Cambridge, Massachusetts, an area that I lived in for about two years. I know this area very well. I'll quote from a study done by Dr Ari Polakowski at MIT. He conducted a study and found that rent control tenants in Cambridge, Massachusetts, were less likely to be in families with children, about half of them had higher-status, white-collar jobs, and only 10% were elderly. The substantial housing benefits were going to relatively well-off tenants. For many, the end of rent control meant the loss of a good housing deal -- a discomfort but not a hardship.

We have known people in Toronto who used rent controlled units, who used subsidized housing just to get a good deal. We have known some elected people who used it to get a good deal -- not that they needed it.

The study also goes on to state: "...and deregulation in Massachusetts seems to be having a beneficial effect on the housing stock, particularly in Cambridge. The number of building permits has increased and anyone walking through the city can clearly see the numerous buildings that were once rent controlled and now are being renovated." This is a study that was published in the New York Times on June 13, 1997. So we know that what we're doing is good for Ontario.

The act also provides an exemption to low-income landlords, landlords who are likely to reside in the west-end area that my friend from Fort York represents. I wonder if the members opposite also object to this exemption given under clause 3(i) to low-income homeowners who need to rent part of their house in order to afford mortgage payments, when they share their bathroom or their kitchen with a tenant. Obviously the stereotype that all landlords are capitalists is not a correct one.

Mr Speaker, I see my time is over. I wish to thank you and thank my friends for allowing me to participate in this debate.

Mr Colle: I just want to talk to a few points in this bill which I thought were some of the main deficiencies in it and the ones that I think are most harmful.

Keith Norton came to speak to the committee. As you know, Keith Norton was a former minister of the Conservative government and he is now the commissioner of human rights in Ontario. He emphatically told us at the committee that parts of this bill are discriminatory, in that this bill now allows a landlord to use the income of the applicant and to use that person's lack of income as an excuse or a reason for excluding someone from renting. Here is the human rights commissioner of the province directly telling the committee and this government that they should not have had that clause in there, yet the government still kept this discriminatory part of the act in the bill that's about to be passed.

As Mr Keith Norton said, "That's paternalistic. I suggest it's demeaning...." He also said: "There are certain groups within our community who may be recent arrivals in Canada, for example, those whose incomes are low and who would be discriminated against, not directly because of their race but indirectly because of their incomes."

Some unscrupulous landlords may use that income information to keep people out of homes. As you know, many poor immigrants who come to urban areas may not have high-paying jobs but they're very good at saving, they're very good at keeping a household going, and their income alone should not be the criteria for saying they can't rent. That is one part of the bill that I find most upsetting, especially when it could have been amended to stop this kind of discrimination. That is not a member of the opposition saying that; that's the human rights commissioner, a long-time, lifelong Tory.

As you know, the Conservative government itself introduced rent control legislation back in 1975, so there are a lot of Conservatives in Ontario, old-time Conservatives, and they are supportive of rent controls. They are supportive of protecting people on fixed incomes in rental accommodation. It's not just one party or two parties; traditionally people of all stripes have seen a need for it and I think that's why Bill Davis introduced rent controls in 1975. It's sad to see something that's been building and improving -- and certainly there's been some need to adjust the rent control system -- and now all of a sudden in essence we see the gutting of rent controls by this government of Mike Harris.

As you know, where the problem is most acute certainly is Metropolitan Toronto. As far back as I can remember, Metropolitan Toronto has always had an acute housing shortage. That goes back to the early 1970s. It goes back even to the post-war period when they built temporary wartime housing in our public parks. I know the member from Etobicoke will remember that in some of our parks downtown they built wartime housing after the war, and some of it remained right up until the 1950s because there was a shortage of housing.

Toronto will always be a place that draws people from far-off lands, from different parts of Canada, from the Maritimes, who come here seeking jobs, seeking employment, so there will always be a lack of affordable housing here. This is why this bill is especially important to people in Metropolitan Toronto and the greater Toronto area. It does not recognize that there is and there will be and there has been an acute housing problem, one of affordability, one of access in Metropolitan Toronto. This bill fails to recognize that.

1710

I know the proponents of this bill say this is going to mean an onslaught of all kinds of construction of rental housing. I think even some of the deputants before the committee said this bill is not a panacea, is not going to mean that people are going to start building rental accommodation, especially in a market where the trend today is to build town houses or condominiums. Condominiums are investments that give a much quicker return to an investor than rental accommodation. There's going to be no panacea here, that all of a sudden construction of rental accommodation will be taking place because of this bill. That's a pipe dream and I don't think anyone believes that. It's not going to solve that.

As you know, what compounds many of the shortfalls in housing is that not only do we now have this oncoming decontrol taking place, but when this government took power two years ago the first thing it did was stop the building of all affordable units in Metropolitan Toronto and the province. Those affordable units are much needed because of the waiting list we have for affordable housing, certainly throughout the province and especially Metropolitan Toronto. You can't take a chance with this bill and at the same time stop the building of affordable housing. The affordable housing is, generally speaking, for people who live on the margins, either because they're older citizens or people who have lost a job, people who are unable to earn an income whereby they can pay market rent. You have to have affordable housing in Metropolitan Toronto because of the fact that there's just so much demand and the supply of affordable housing is not going to be there.

If you go around Toronto now, the ironic thing is that you see all over Metropolitan Toronto the building of all kinds of luxury and upper-level condominiums. Those are for people generally in the middle- and upper-income levels. They're not going to meet the needs of our seniors and working people in lower-income brackets. The response of the marketplace to the shortage of housing in Toronto has been that the free market is out there building luxury condominiums. There's proof right there that the free market by itself cannot meet the needs of people in need. That is one of the main lessons of the marketplace. It doesn't work by itself. It's not as if the government should totally control the marketplace, but you have to have some kind of involvement. With this bill, along with the cessation of affordable housing, you're creating a very dangerous framework for an acute housing problem, especially in the area of affordable housing.

As you know, this is not only about downtown Toronto; this is about all of Metro and the GTA, whereby people are looking to try and just pay a basic rent to make ends meet. This bill does not help them one iota. I say to you, in many cases it doesn't even help the landlords because there are so many complexities still in this bill.

This bill is not a panacea. In fact, it is going to scrap things like rent freezes where landlords don't do their job in complying with work orders. It makes conversions easier; we're going to lose a lot of good apartments. It also makes demolition easier. There are a lot of negatives here, and by no means will it mean that affordable housing is going to be on the market, certainly in Metropolitan Toronto.

Ms Martel: It's a pleasure to speak to this resolution this afternoon. I'll speak for a few short minutes, because I want to share my time with the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

But I want to say that the whole title of this bill, the Tenant Protection Act, is an oxymoron and has been from the beginning. The white paper was; this bill is. There's nothing in this bill that is going to protect tenants across this province. There is everything in this bill, however, that protects big landlords in this province, the friends of the Conservative government, everything in this bill that will make sure that they get increased rents, that they use every means at their disposal to force economic evictions for people in those units to get them out to increase rents. They will increase rents on the existing units, given all the incentives the Tories have in this bill.

At the end of the day, these same landlord friends who are going to make all kinds of money from the changes in this bill aren't going to build one single new unit of affordable housing in the province. Developers and landlords who came before the committee told members that again and again, despite whatever the Tories want to say different. People who came before the committee who build in this market said they wouldn't because they want more and better incentives and better handouts if they are going to do anything.

I want to make a couple of points. Let me follow up on the last one first. I was at the hearing in Sudbury. I heard one of the developers, the only developer who came forward, who said that unless the government provided some other incentives, some other handouts, some other cash, economic means, tax breaks, you have it, he wasn't interested in building in this market. He was not interested.

That followed from what the committee heard on the white paper when they went out a year ago; that followed from what the committee heard in other communities. Despite what the Tories say, that somehow these changes are going to result in increased units on the market, the only units that are going to be increased on the market are condominiums and the high-rental market, not affordable housing for people who need affordable housing in this province. We heard that again and again.

Tenants under this bill are going to face all kinds of harassment from unscrupulous landlords, all kinds of ways and means to an end, to try and force those people out of those units, because under the bill, once you can get a person out of the unit, you can increase the rent.

We heard from tenants and from legal clinics that provide representation for tenants many horror stories of people who are already facing all kinds of unscrupulous activities from landlords now, under the current bill. We heard about people who couldn't get their plumbing problems fixed, who couldn't get mice and rat problems fixed, who couldn't get insect problems fixed because there were unscrupulous landlords who had no interest in doing that.

Imagine for those people, for those unscrupulous landlords who are already prepared to do that, the financial incentive they will now have to force those kinds of things even more to get people out of those units, because once they can get people out of those units, they can increase the rent to whatever they want and charge whatever they want. For those people who are already using all kinds of awful means to attack and harass tenants, imagine what will happen now under this bill when they know they will have a financial incentive now as well to get people out because they will be able to raise their rent to whatever level they want.

This government has tried to say, and this is the third point I want to make, that somehow the tenant is going to be able to negotiate with the landlord the rent for that unit that has been vacated.

This government has no idea about the lack of power that tenants have and all of the power that landlords have, especially big landlords. For goodness' sake, what kind of negotiation is going to go on in a tight rental market like Toronto, for example? Imagine a tenant coming forward and saying, "I only have $600 to give." The landlord says, "I want $1,000." "I can't afford it." The landlord says: "Thank you very much. I've got other people who desperately need housing who can afford to pay $1,000. Go on your merry way."

There's no negotiation that's going to happen in a tight rental market. People are going to be squeezed. They are not going to be able to afford high new rents that some landlords want to charge. As a result, people who are forced out of their other apartments because of economic evictions are going to find themselves on the street, because in Toronto and many other cities, landlords are not building affordable units. We know they're not. We know they are not going to when this bill becomes law.

Those tenants who stay in their apartments, who now become sitting ducks, still will suffer a rent increase, and this government refuses to acknowledge that. These tenants are now going to face a guideline of 3%, they're going to face a possible capital cost of 4%, then they're going to have to deal with a pass-through of utility and property costs on top of the guideline, and some of them are also going to perhaps face the cost of a fridge and stove they've paid for, and those costs will still continue. Even people who have to stay in their units because they're afraid of moving because they're afraid of even higher rents, are themselves going to face a significant rent increase under this bill and under this government.

1720

The Conservatives have done nothing to protect tenants. This bill is all about how they can protect their landlord friends and make sure those folks, the bigger ones in particular, can make even more money. They've got absolutely no interest in ensuring that affordable housing is built in this province. That's clear, because they cancelled co-op and non-profit projects we were undertaking, and there's nothing in this bill to force landlords to build under this scenario. The government has shown no concern for tenants whatsoever.

I don't want to let the Liberals get off the hook in the short time I have. I notice that in the Liberal motion it says, "Whereas Liberal leader Dalton McGuinty has committed to scrapping Bill 96 and replacing it with meaningful rent controls," and then it goes on to talk about the "government to stop." I was here when the Liberal Party voted against our rent control bill because they weren't interested in protecting tenants. I was also here when this same government --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Take your seat.

Member for Sudbury East.

Ms Martel: I was also here when this same group of folks on this side voted against a resolution that was moved about a year ago by my colleague Mr Bisson, who was our housing critic at that point, which called upon the government to "maintain a fair and equitable rent control program, similar to the present rent control system introduced by the previous New Democratic Party government." The only people in the Liberal caucus who voted for that were Mr Agostino and Mr Mike Colle. The rest voted against.

You've got the same thing happening. Federal Liberals, provincial Liberals and the provincial Tories don't care about affordable housing, don't care about tenants. They're in the same bed as far as I can tell, and it's tenants who are getting the shaft as a result.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I was compelled to join this debate today, because I just had to put a few things on the record.

First of all, let's talk about the Liberal record with legislation. They took over rent controls that were put in place by the provincial Conservative Party to protect tenants. What did they do? They changed it.

I want to tell you how they changed the legislation. They allowed the landlord to charge interest on a mortgage up to 85% of the value of the building, no matter what they paid for the building. This led to a practice which was known as stepped financing, so that when a building was sold -- and buildings were being sold week by week and churned, always for higher amounts of money, because of this financing arrangement the Liberals allowed, which caused the largest increases in rents in provincial history.

When the NDP came to power they brought in some legislation. I didn't agree with their legislation -- I'll speak to that in a moment -- but what they did when they came in was they quoted some statistics, and guess what? Some of the tenants had had increases, according to the NDP, of 150%. That was as a result of the Liberal legislation.

While I don't often agree with the NDP, I have to say they were right in saying the Liberal legislation was totally irrational. Everybody was laughing at you except the tenants. The tenants were crying because they were getting the short end of the stick of your legislation.

You have the audacity to come in and complain about the legislation we're bringing in, which has continued rent controls as long as that unit is occupied. There is an element called vacancy decontrol that allows the landlord to set the market rent upon the unit becoming vacant. Guess what? This is something that the Liberals agreed to with the landlords. They made a deal and then they broke the deal. The landlords remember that. The tenants remember that you also abandoned them, because you allowed rents to go up.

This 85% financing would work like this: You would get a first mortgage. Let's say the building was a $1-million building, because an awful lot of small landlords bought buildings in those days, invested every penny of their savings for their old age, and they lost it. They actually lost it when the NDP came in and didn't allow any increases to go through as a result of repairs and renovations that they put in, which they were required to have spent money on before they could apply for the rental increase.

The only logical thing about your legislation, gentlemen in the Liberal Party -- because I don't see any ladies there at the moment -- was that you continued to allow to flow through the cost of renovation and repairs. This is something which had to be done beforehand. Only at that point could you apply to get the money back over the five-year period. The NDP retroactively said, "It doesn't matter that you have spent money; we're not going to allow you to get it." There are all kinds of landlords, small landlords, who had put their life savings, their pension money, into small apartment buildings, because the average landlord in this province owns less than six units. They went bankrupt and lost their life savings as a result of what the NDP did.

The tenants took it in the neck as a result of the illogical legislation the Liberals put in place.

So you having the audacity to bring this debate here today, I wanted to make sure the good people out there were aware of the facts. Anybody who needs further details should contact my office. I would be very pleased to furnish them. In view of the time, I have to sit down.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I just have to somehow respond to that comment from the member for -- what's his riding?

Interjection: He doesn't have a riding.

Mr Patten: No, he has a riding.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): York Mills.

Mr Patten: I just want to remind the member for York Mills that in 1975 of course, when the Conservative government brought in rent control, it was not comprehensive rent control; it was partial rent control. That was to deal with units that were from 1975 and onward, which caused great upheaval in the community and forced the Liberal government at the time, when they were the government, to bring in a much more comprehensive rent control issue that did that.

Mr Turnbull: Which allowed rents to increase up to 100%.

The Deputy Speaker: You had your turn.

Mr Patten: The issue was that there was an attempt to provide it and provide fairness all the way around.

Mr Turnbull: You allowed 80% financing.

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

Mr Patten: I want to allow my colleague who was the housing minister at the time to have some time to speak, so I will just make that simple point, that the intent was a complete, comprehensive piece of legislation that addressed the whole sector, not simply part of it, which drove up rents incredibly throughout Ontario.

Ms Lankin: I have to say to the member for Ottawa Centre, if that was the attempt, it was a dismal failure, because the member for York Mills is right: There were rent increases of 150%; there were people having to pay key money to get apartments. It was a dismal failure, and that's why it needed to be changed.

I want to reserve the very short time I have to comment on the government's legislation, because I'm very concerned. I've been holding meetings with tenants in Beaches and in East York, talking to them about how this legislation is going to work and what it means for them. A lot of people are very worried. We know that rents are going to go up for everybody.

Currently there are some guidelines and there are some hurdles you have to get over if you're going to pass on any capital costs. You're increasing those guidelines, but you're also allowing for complete pass-through of utility increases and property tax increases. With your download of costs here in Metro, property taxes are going up and renters are going to be paying that. We suspect that most tenants are going to see an 8% to 10% increase in Metro.

1730

Second, through the vacancy decontrol, you either make people prisoners in their apartments or you have complete decontrol of the market out there within three to four years. What it means is that you are waving a financial incentive in front of the nose of those unscrupulous landlords, and we all know there are some out there who are quite unscrupulous, to get people out of the apartments, to get rid of them, because then they can jack the price up. You know there's going to be increased harassment of tenants as a result of this.

There are other jurisdictions that have done this. You didn't come up with this idea of vacancy decontrol. It has happened in the United States in areas of New York; it's a debate in Boston in terms of the result of it three years down the road. I can tell you there is less affordable housing, tenants have been harassed, people have been forced out of their buildings through all sorts of unscrupulous means, so that landlords can jack up the rents.

The other thing you're doing is going to lead to a loss of affordable rental housing. You're doing away with the Rental Housing Protection Act, which allows municipalities to put controls on and stop the demolition of some rental buildings in order to turn them into condominiums. There again, you're going to have the tenants, the last ones who are holding out in the building, harassed to get out so they can turn this into a condominium, and you lose more affordable housing as a result of it.

Tenants are going to lose power with respect to being able to get needed maintenance done. Right now, if there are maintenance orders out against the building and the landlord doesn't act, you can go as a tenant and get a rent freeze put on that building -- a collective action and get a rent freeze. We're working with some tenants right now. As soon as this law passes, that's gone. They don't have the power any more. The landlords can get their rent increases whether or not they proceed and deal with the outstanding maintenance orders. Why would you be taking such power away from the hands of tenants?

The other thing you're doing is completely taking away the fairness of the appeal process. Many things will no longer be appealable, but beyond that, you're no longer allowing group appeals. So if someone comes forward, an individual tenant, and is able to make the case that there's been a loss of service and therefore that's not part of the contract of what was in the rent, under the current system they could apply for a rent reduction, which would apply to the whole building. You're going to make every single tenant come and apply for that same rent reduction, as opposed to it being done as a group, a collective. This is a way to try and undermine the work of tenant associations and give more power to the landlords and less to the individual tenants. I really don't understand.

I think the bottom line for people is that they've got to understand that the changes that are coming are coming quickly and tenants are going to be hurt by them. Landlords are going to have financial incentives to harass tenants, to get tenants out, to increase the rents.

We will not see, in two years' time, the full impact of this, and that's the message I want to deliver to tenants in this province. It takes maybe three to four years for the full impact of this legislation to hit in terms of the devastation of the rental market. In two years' time this government across the floor will be up for re-election. Tenants are a powerful voice in this province. Tenants must organize. Tenants must ensure they extract a promise for a reinstitution of meaningful rent controls.

That's why I'm going to support this resolution, even though I find it very odd that it comes from the Liberal Party, which didn't do this themselves and voted against meaningful rent control under the New Democratic Party. But I'm going to support this because tenants need to organize. They need to get their act together and extract those commitments from politicians, because this government can't get elected without the support of tenants. Let me tell you, with what you've done, that support is eroding quickly every day and it'll be gone by the time the next election's here. I think that's a good thing, because tenants deserve fairness and right of access to housing in this province.

Mr Gilchrist: I'm pleased to sum up the comments from the government side on this resolution brought forward by the Liberal Party. The member for Beaches-Woodbine was quite astute in her final observation, that it is remarkable this comes from a party that has, I guess if it has any accomplishment, come down squarely on both sides of this issue over the last six years.

Back when the hearings took place for the NDP bill, they certainly came out very strongly in support of the landlords exclusively, I think you could say, and now they would suggest they are the friend of all the tenants in Ontario. I think people have a longer memory than that.

Let's recap exactly what the process was. Over a year ago the government brought out a policy paper, a discussion paper, New Directions on landlord and tenant issues, and we held hearings across this province. We received a total of 250 submissions from landlords and tenants and other interested parties. As a result of those submissions, this bill, Bill 96, was crafted.

This bill also followed the normal legislative process. It went through first and second readings in this chamber with fulsome debate, and then proceeded to more travel time and more hearings here in Toronto and we heard again from 130 different groups and individuals. Those people represented a wide spectrum of interests, not just people who live in apartment buildings. We had people from mobile home parks. We had people in land-lease, owned-lot communities, and quite frankly a far greater discussion than has perhaps taken place before on this issue.

As a result of what we heard, the government brought forward dozens of amendments, over 70 amendments, and contrary to what is suggested in the motion itself, we also accepted five Liberal amendments and one NDP amendment, something that one would not deduce from this motion. The fact of the matter is, we even listened to the opposition parties as we crafted this bill.

The bottom line is that a number of very significant amendments and improvements were made in the course of the hearings, and quite frankly since the first discussion paper came out back in the summer of 1996. What we have now before us, awaiting third reading and ultimately passage into law, is a bill which will do a number of things to improve the lot for tenants in this province and put far greater penalties in place to deal with landlords who treat their tenants unfairly.

First off, what we're suggesting is that the issues involving landlords and tenants move out of the courts and into a specialized tribunal where the personnel involved will have the expertise and the time to deal with the landlord and tenant issues that do come up from time to time.

No longer will a simple dispute between a landlord and tenant be tied up on the court docket for months and months, as is the case in many parts of this province. We've guaranteed that the tribunal will have the resources to deal with landlord and tenant issues in a very timely fashion, and in fact will travel to the communities, not just be resident where the court buildings are right now, but will travel across the province and deal with issues as they arise in various communities.

We're putting in place a process that will allow a fair hearing for both parties. But even before that we're making sure that far more of the issues that may have become the issue at courts before can be resolved between the landlord and the tenant. We've done that by clarifying a number of issues. Not the least of them were the issues arising about rent control. Rent control is a failure. Rent control is an admission of failure. It is an aberration. It is interference in the free marketplace and, quite frankly, it is totally unnecessary in Ontario today.

Having said that, we didn't take that step. We didn't eliminate rent controls. We made one very simple change. Because at the end of the day presumably the people opposite and any reasonable person would agree that it's the resident who needs protection, not the bricks and mortar. So what we have done is to say that as long as someone stays in their apartment, any apartment, rent control continues to apply, and only after someone voluntarily leaves their own apartment would that apartment be free of rent control and the landlord could then try and get a different rent out in the marketplace.

But let's remember two things: I've yet to encounter, in all these hearings and all the discussions with people around this topic of their old Landlord and Tenant Act, our new Tenant Protection Act, one tenant who has said, "I'll move out of the apartment I'm very happy with just on a whim and I'm going to start wandering the streets without knowing where I'm going."

Obviously a tenant negotiates with the new landlord first. The tenant knows where they're moving, knows the terms of the new rental contract, knows they can afford that move, and then relocates. Obviously, in that circumstance, which is the normal circumstance, the old unit sits idle, totally at the whim of the old tenant. The situation across this province, if you were to listen to the opposition party, is that then the landlords could turn around and make outrageous profits by jacking up the rents.

Unfortunately, and as is far too often the case in this chamber, the facts belie that point of view. Outside of Metro Toronto itself there are only a handful of communities that haven't got staggeringly high vacancy rates, places like London with over a 6% vacancy, where hundreds and hundreds of apartments are sitting empty with advertisements in the London Free Press and in other rental newspapers and magazines every day. A majority of the apartments in London were renting for under $400 on the day the hearings hit. In fact, over 20% of the apartments advertised in that newspaper were going for under $300.

1740

If in fact the marketplace has all of these vacancies, how could a landlord on a whim engineer the rents up? There's only one way a landlord could get more money in that sort of competitive marketplace, and that's by spending a lot of money and improving the facilities to the point that it was worthy of higher rent. Presumably the old tenant moved out only because, for the same dollars or perhaps less, they were getting equal or better accommodation. Tenants don't move out intentionally and spend more for inferior accommodation. That wouldn't make any sense. The marketplace creates these vacancies and the landlords either have to lower their rents, which is what we heard throughout all of the hearings across this province, or they have to spend dollars and bring up the quality of the housing stock. There is no third choice.

One of the members opposite in their comments suggested that there was one developer in Sudbury who suggested the changes in this bill weren't enough to prompt him to make further investments. Any number of changes may or may not influence any one person in the province of Ontario. However, it's unfortunate the member was not able to participate in the other days of hearings, because she would have heard in Ottawa Minto Developments Inc, the largest landlord in the Ottawa area, announce a $31-million expansion in their capital budget specifically related to this bill. They would not have made those investments, they wouldn't be improving the housing stock for their tenants, if they didn't have the comfort that this bill was going forward and creating a fairer balance between landlords and tenants. I trust she received the press release that was sent out by Minto to all of the members.

When we see landlords that currently own thousands and thousands of apartments say that this bill is necessary and it will prompt the construction of new affordable housing in the province, then we know we're on the right track. The numbers speak for themselves.

Surely even the NDP in their most outrageous moments would agree that you don't turn housing on like a tap. So whatever took place in 1995, all of 1995, could not be laid at the feet of the new government. It takes months to plan and then construct a building. In fact, that would be true well into 1996. In all of Metro Toronto in 1995, there were 20 apartment units built. In 1996 there were 37 more. I suspect this will come as a great shock to the member opposite, who believes in doom and gloom --

Ms Martel: How many do you think are going to be built? They want extensions. They told you that already, Steve.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East.

Mr Gilchrist: -- who believes that pessimism is the way to take our province to greater heights, but the fact of the matter is, in anticipation of this bill, landlords across Toronto have started making new investments. In July alone, one month, 206 new units were started.

Ms Martel: Are they affordable units or are they condominium units?

Mr Gilchrist: In the year before, in response to your legislation, 37 units.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, I don't have to warn you again, please.

Ms Martel: Are they affordable? Building condominiums will not help the --

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Sudbury East.

Mr Gilchrist: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your restoring order.

Again, you've walked right into this one: Yes. The answer to your question is that they are affordable: two buildings on Spadina and one building on Yorkview Avenue being built as affordable housing. The bottom line is, that's what's happening in response to this bill. All across Ontario we have seen vacancy rates rise and the market respond. Even here in Toronto, where the vacancy rate was 0.5% the day we were elected, it's now triple that. It has tripled as people, in response to the greater dollars they find in their pockets, as a result in turn of the tax cut, are now moving out of apartments and buying single-family homes, at record rates.

There have never before been the kind of housing starts in the greater Toronto area that there have been in these last two years. Housing starts are up 48% over last year, new home sales. Obviously, the people moving into them had to come from somewhere. They're coming, by and large, from medium- and upper-priced apartments.

The other way the marketplace is responding to ensure there's more affordable housing is by seeing rents go down.

Even more to the point, one of the other members suggested that this bill in and of itself will not solve all the housing problems. We agree wholeheartedly. Let me just read a few other comments.

I don't know whether the members opposite would respond favourably to this, but we've said that building code changes add to the cost of housing. That's why we waited two years and undertook a review of the building code, made a number of changes that will save multiple thousands of dollars in the construction of new homes.

We've said that we were going to keep the land transfer tax rebate for first-time home buyers -- another way of encouraging people who are currently renting to go out and buy their first home.

We've said that the planning process was flawed and that there was a need to streamline the timetables, to ensure that the processing of building applications was done in a timely fashion.

Mr Duncan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum for the member's speech?

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is there a quorum present?

Clerk Assistant (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: Member for Scarborough East.

Mr Gilchrist: You know you've touched a nerve when they have to resort to those sorts of delaying tactics.

Let me go back to continue the list of things we've done. We're streamlining the planning process to ensure a more timely production of new housing stock. We've also placed a moratorium on non-profit housing, because we believe in co-ops; we just don't believe the government should be subsidizing them. Those are just a few things.

What's interesting is that the book I was reading from -- and I would remind anyone watching at home that this is a Liberal opposition day motion -- was the Liberal red book. Not Chairman Mao's red book, but something fairly similar: the Liberal red book. That's precisely what the Liberal Party called for, and that is precisely what we have done.

Rather than stand there and admit that we're on exactly the same track, we're on exactly the same wavelength, they play the game. This has nothing to do with representing landlords and tenants; it has everything to do with cheap theatrics, and it's unbecoming. The bottom line is that this bill has already, even before it has been passed, seen a number of positive impacts across the province, and there will be many more to come. There's no doubt about that whatsoever. We're not stopping. There will be continued concentration on the means through which we can ensure that there are lots of incentives for the creation of new housing, which also means more jobs and more investment.

I think it's also appropriate again, given that this is a Liberal opposition motion -- one of my colleagues mentioned some of the comments made by the former Liberal housing member, the member for Scarborough North, Mr Curling. He said: "The current NDP bill hurts both landlords and tenants. It doesn't provide funds that are needed to complete the necessary repairs on the province's aging rental housing."

We've also heard the quote from the friend of every democrat, the man who quite frankly didn't think it appropriate to stand for office to express his views but still would suggest that he speaks for all the people of Toronto, John Sewell. He said, "Rent controls affect only the well-off," that two thirds of the dollars go to benefit the wealthy. That's what John Sewell said.

1750

We can talk briefly about the successes in all those jurisdictions that have decided to eliminate rent controls in whole or in part. Just an excerpt from an ABC news show, Prime Time Live, on February 19, 1997: "Two years ago Massachusetts decided to end rent control. People are building housing now in Boston for the first time in 20 years."

Bottom line: This is nothing unique to Ontario. This is something that applies anywhere governments interfere in the free marketplace. Dr Larry Smith, a renowned economics professor at the University of Toronto and an expert on the housing market, said this is probably the ideal time to take off rent controls, but we didn't go that far. Willard Dunning, senior analyst for the Toronto market for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp, said the market is setting rents right now, not rent controls.

In the hearings the landlords came forward, many of them with thousands of units under their control, and some said not one of their apartments is at the maximum rent allowed under the NDP law. Not one of them is where it can be and yet the suggestion is that the changes we make will somehow drive up rents. The marketplace is guaranteeing that the rents will go down.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine made one other point and I'd like to follow up on that as my final submission here. There is no doubt the province alone cannot guarantee affordable housing. The single biggest barrier to affordable housing in Ontario today is the property tax treatment.

Most people are not aware that apartments are taxed, on average, over twice as much as the same square footage of a single family home, but there are many communities where it's far more than a two-to-one ratio. Here in Toronto a tenant is charged 6.2 times as much. So if the member's friends and one mayoral candidate are serious about dealing with tenant issues, are serious about creating affordable housing, then maybe as part of their commitments in the upcoming municipal election they will commit once and for all to bringing fairness to the property taxation on apartment buildings.

Let me highlight that. In Scarborough East, if the Scarborough government had been applying tax fairly, the average apartment would drop by $125 a month and the average rent would be $425 -- obviously affordable.

They and they alone set the property tax rates and they and they alone have decided, perhaps because tenants don't vote to the same percentage as single family home occupants, and maybe because it's hidden in the rent they thought they could get away with it, but they and they alone can change that and they can reduce the cost of rents in every municipality in Ontario, not with another law, not with another regulation, not by interfering in the marketplace, but by bringing fairness back to the pricing of property tax all across Ontario. That's why I'm opposing this motion.

Mr Curling: Let me just use this opportunity to thank my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville for bringing forward a resolution to remind this government that the direction they are going in regard to protecting tenants is the wrong way, and all the words they have used in their bill are not fooling anyone out there. This has nothing to do with protecting tenants. I just want to say, on the eve of when you want to bring this legislation in, that I remind you all that 3.3 million tenants out there will not forget the direction this government is going.

I should also remind my colleagues in the Conservative Party that they were the ones who brought in rent control in 1975. I say that not to compliment them in any way that they had seen the light about rent control, but they were driven by this when they saw they would get beaten at the polls and needed the tenants' vote. What they did was they brought in a half-witted sort of rent control that almost did more damage to the whole process of protecting and bringing affordable accommodation to the over three million tenants in the province.

After years in government the people had thrown them out, and when the Liberal Party came in, in 1985, we brought in rent control that covered all units, moving towards a much more comprehensive, fairer policy in dealing with fair rental accommodation.

I heard the member for Scarborough East, who said he walks the streets and who also said their government believes in co-ops so much they don't have to support this. It seems to me they are convinced that landlords will build affordable units.

The enemy in all of this is not the landlord. The enemy in protecting tenants and having good rent control policy is that government over there, the Tory government. They keep on talking about beating up the landlords or tenants, when on the Liberal side we look at fairness, a way to protect tenants and to be fair to landlords in their investment. There's nothing wrong with that. We consistently say that and we continue to say that even when the NDP comes in and talks about "It's only tenants."

We feel that in this situation, to bring affordable units on to the market, government must play a big role, not destroying the co-ops, not destroying affordable social housing and giving it over to landlords and then saying to them they can deliver that. They will never deliver affordable housing. It's not beneficial, it's not profitable, and there is nothing wrong in having a profit in any way.

That is why my leader, Dalton McGuinty, and the Liberal Party will say whenever we become the government we will scrap this kind of makeshift rent control that you are talking about, which has no protection for tenants, none in the least, and we will bring in a proper rent control policy.

To say that here we have a protection policy -- I remember when I went on the road for this New Directions discussion paper and I pointed out to all the tenants, who did not need to be pointed out on this matter, that this is the policy they're going to bring in. They said, "No, it's only a discussion paper." If you read that discussion paper today and read Bill 96, it's the same thing. This Conservative Mike Harris government was intending all along to scrap rent control and all of --

Ms Martel: Alvin, they're all Reformers.

Mr Curling: My colleague reminds me of the bunch of Reformers we have who are masquerading as Conservatives, who are a shameful bunch compared to the real Progressive Conservatives I knew in the past. As a matter of fact, quite a few of the Reformers were skating, coming hurriedly to Mike Harris. Even when they were trying to form a provincial Reform Party he begged them: "Listen, we are great Reformers, we don't need another Reformer in the province. We are the ones who will deal with those tenants. We will make sure that the landlords are protected and the tenants are cast out on the street." That's why the member for Scarborough East says they believe in co-ops so much they don't have to support any affordable situation in this.

He comes here lecturing us. I hope when he goes home sometimes and those tenants see him on the street, they will talk to him about the protection. I wonder too what he will tell all those students who will be moving nearly every nine months and when they leave their accommodation their rents are going to go up. He said that's protection because they have given the rights to the tenants to do that.

When I spoke to a very renowned teacher, Wendy Gibb, who was selected as secondary school teacher of the year at Stormont Dundas and Glengarry County Board of Education, she was concerned, of course, when those students will then go to any university and find they will pay a higher price because this government believes so much in raising not only the rents of those students, they've already put some other costs in the sense of tuition fees and many other things that burden those students.

Saying now that they come to protect tenants in this new protection for tenants legislation doesn't go anywhere. Let me again remind them that rent control is a necessary tool that we must have. It is very much necessary. The landlords who have been beaten up every day will take this kind of legislation as a tool to make sure that their profits are enhanced.

Why do we need laws? We need laws to make sure that fairness is in the system. We're not concerned about those who are buying homes in affordable areas. It's those who can't afford it we must protect. This government isn't concerned about that. They will sell off all of those. But I should also remind them that one of the worst landlords we had, and they were protecting our property, was the government itself. But what these have done is sold out all of that to the landlords, sold out themselves in the Reform concept they have.

Today what we have, Mr Speaker, as you know even in your constituency, is that the tenants are not protected, and this government will continue to protect their rich friends.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that opposition day number 1 carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; this will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1802 to 1807.

The Speaker: Mr Duncan has moved opposition day motion number 1. All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Curling, Alvin

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Grandmaître, Bernard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Laughren, Floyd

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Morin, Gilles E.

Patten, Richard

Pouliot, Gilles

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Speaker: All those opposed, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Baird, John R.

Bassett, Isabel

Boushy, Dave

Brown, Jim

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Johnson, David

Johnson, Ron

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Leach, Al

Leadston, Gary L.

Marland, Margaret

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Preston, Peter

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Sampson, Rob

Saunderson, William

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Turnbull, David

Villeneuve, Noble

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 28; the nays are 55.

The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

It now being after 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until about half past 6.

The House adjourned at 1810.

Evening sitting reported in volume B.

October 1, 1997

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

SPORTS FUNDING

MARY SILAJ

GUELPH HOSPITALS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

LABOUR LEGISLATION

MS COLUMBUS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

EDUCATION FINANCING

ROSH HASHANAH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

STANDING COMMMITTE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SENIOR CITIZENS

ACCESS TO LEGISLATIVE BUILDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FINANCING

STEWART BRADDICK

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

HOME CARE

FERRY SERVICE

WINDSOR CASINO

FIRE IN HAMILTON

ROAD MAINTENANCE

FIRE IN HAMILTON

PETITIONS

EDUCATION FINANCING

FIRE IN HAMILTON

CHILD CARE

PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

SCHOOL PRAYERS

STANDING ORDERS REFORM

COURT DECISION

EDUCATION FINANCING

COURT DECISION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

TVONTARIO

OPPOSITION DAY

RENT REGULATION