Journal des débats 1982-oct-28 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: On Tuesday, an answer was tabled by the government House leader on behalf of the ministry, which was more or less a blanket answer to several questions that have been on the Order Paper well beyond the time limit established by the rules of this House.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, I brought to your attention earlier this week that a number of these questions had run over the time limit.

The response from the government was not an answer at all. It was simply an indication that the government was not prepared to provide the answers to these specific questions put to the ministry asking for facts on the operation of the government of Ontario.

The ministry indicated that they did not have the time to provide the information under the rules and were not prepared to do so, suggesting that the honourable members of the House go to the services of our library or to the public accounts to find the information they were seeking.

I am sure you are aware, Mr. Speaker, that some weeks ago the library informed us all formally that because of the pressure of business and the fact that their budget had not been expanded as they had expected, they were not able to look after all of the requests that had come from the members, although we have since been personally informed that they have caught up with that backlog.

I simply put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the traditions of this House have always established the rights of the members to put on the Notice Paper specific questions of the ministry asking for information that should be provided in the House.

In the most recent amendments to the rules, the government has come under the rule of the House that provides specific time limits for these answers so that they cannot drag on and on. Now we are provided with what the ministry considers to be an answer under the rules which simply tells us to go suck eggs, or something like that.

I would say to you, it is entirely unacceptable that the government, spending a budget of $23 billion, with all of their platoons of information officers spending all their time trying to make their ministers look good -- and usually failing in that connection -- does not have the time or the wherewithal to provide the answers to the questions that have been put on the Order Paper.

I believe this is a very serious infringement of the well-known and established rights and privileges of the members of the House, not just the opposition. I believe you, sir, as our spokesman and guardian of these privileges, should take whatever action is sufficient to see that answers are provided by the government and in the time limits established by our rules.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the same point of privilege. I also am quite disturbed by the government's action, or I should say inaction, to clean up the backlog of questions that have been placed on the Order Paper by some members of the House.

I took some time to go over carefully the press release sent to the caucuses by the cabinet office. Basically, it is suggested that there are no financial resources in this time of restraint to answer questions of the members of the opposition, and that we go to the library services, as was mentioned by my honourable colleague, or to the ministers themselves.

Does the cabinet office not feel or believe that if we go directly to the ministers, or if we go directly to the legislative library research service with all of our questions, they also are going to need extra resources to answer the questions we place before them?

The statement which has been forwarded to the caucuses by the cabinet office is nothing more than a smokescreen. This government is the most secretive in Canada. They do not want to inform the opposition of what is going on in the ministries. They want to build up lines of defences. They want to impair our ability to act as good members of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that you not allow them, and by them I mean the government, to infringe on our right to carry out our duties.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of order. Today, the Toronto Star reported that yesterday, in a secret meeting, the cabinet of Ontario --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You are dealing with a new point. Let us first deal with the first point.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address myself to the first matter that was raised here and that was questioned by two of our members.

I have raised questions relating to the Ministry of Energy on matters that you will be aware, sir, in view of the federal and provincial restraint programs, are matters of an urgent nature for the people throughout Ontario, who are seeing energy costs going out of sight. I thought these matters should have been addressed by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch). They are very pertinent and we need answers as soon as we can get them.

I would ask you to intervene on our behalf to ensure that we can answer to the people of Ontario about where we are headed in these very important matters and see what the ministry is doing about the cost of energy, while we are attempting to do something meaningful for the people of Canada and Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this point of privilege and since the matter has been brought up with your agreement, I would like to read the answer that this government gave because I think it has been misinterpreted.

2:10 p.m.

The answer that was given to a number of questions on the Order Paper read: "The government will attempt to provide an answer to as many questions as possible before the adjournment of this session. It should be noted, however, that the tremendous increase in the number and complexity of questions. . ." and I might just digress there and say that in the first session of the 32nd Parliament there were 282 questions on the Order Paper; to the present time there are 650 questions on the Order Paper waiting for answers.

To continue: ". . . the complexity of questions placed on the Order Paper would require that increased amounts of time and manpower be diverted from present assignments in order to provide the information requested. An alternative would be to increase the resources allocated to the performance of this function. At a time when the government is endeavouring to adhere to an ongoing restraint program, neither course of action would seem appropriate.

"Should there be questions that cannot be answered in the remaining weeks, given these circumstances, members should note that sources other than the Order Paper may be utilized as part of the search for such information.

"For example, the public accounts of Ontario will be of assistance in regard to many of the questions dealing with expenditures. Questions of this nature could also be directed towards the ministers responsible for such transactions during the estimates process.

"All honourable members enjoy access to the research and information services provided by the legislative library, and the Liberal and New Democratic parties each possess their own research capabilities funded through the budgets accorded both parties.

"It is hoped that through a combination of these approaches, with the full co-operation of ministers and members, all honourable members will be able to obtain the information that they seek.

"Every effort will be made to answer the following questions on or before December 17, 1982." Then we give the list of the questions, Mr. Speaker.

It must be noted that in the 650 questions there are now appearing many questions that would normally be asked of ministers during the estimates process. There are many hours devoted in this House to consideration of estimates by ministers when the minister and his staff are there, and I would defy members to find times when the information that has been requested during that estimates procedure has been denied to the members of this House.

Questions relating to the cost of a car, how many staff are in various departments and so forth have traditionally been asked at estimates time. We now find multitudes of questions on the Order Paper. They will be answered in due course, but it does take time to compile all that information.

I want to point out that there is no attempt on the part of this government to deny information to the members of this House. But at some point there is a bit of responsibility on the part of the members over there to search the information out of the public records that are available rather than dump it all on our hard-pressed research staffs.

I should also point out to the members that we will adhere to the standing orders of this House, which state that some form of answer should be provided within 14 days, albeit that this answer may be that it will take us longer to provide a more detailed answer to the question. I should also point out to the members that under standing order 81(d) it is possible for a minister to say that he declines to answer. That is also one of the options offered here; it is in the standing orders.

I want to assure the House that this government stands ready to provide all the information it can. There has been a very great increase in the number of questions, and I think our friends over there should realize that we have tried to give a rather careful explanation rather than just to put in the answers to the questions. They will be answered by December 17. We have tried to explain to members some of the problems we face.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, that is just --

Mr. Speaker: No, I think everybody has had ample time to --

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, then.

Mr. Speaker: No, we are dealing with this point of order.

Mr. Sargent: Why are you part of the coverup too? Sit down for a second. That is a bunch of garbage.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to resume his seat, please. Thank you.

The point of privilege which was raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) was a matter which has arisen from time to time in this House where honourable members have appealed to the Speaker to make a judgement or to adjudicate on a difference of opinion. Obviously, the government has provided an answer. Although the member may not be happy with that answer, that is beyond my jurisdiction or authority to deal with.

I would refer all members to standing order 81(d), which says quite clearly: "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming. . ."

The government House leader has indicated that the answers will be forthcoming in detail at a later date. He has said quite clearly that he needs more time in order to prepare those answers so I do not see that the member has a point of privilege. The matter has been dealt with.

The member for Oshawa.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: No. I have recognized the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Sargent: I know you have, but why not recognize me for once?

Mr. Speaker: Because he was on his feet first. The member for Oshawa.

[Later]

Mr. Kerrio: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I was interested in your assessment of the question that was raised a while ago. You referred to section 81(d) of the standing orders. You made a good point but in order to help you come to some real determination may I just put this on the record?

In question 293, I asked of the minister: "Would the Minister of Energy provide the cost of the quarter page advertisement placed by Ontario Hydro in the Globe and Mail. . ." That was asked in September and that does not require a lot of research.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Quite clearly, that is also out of order.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I submit to you that this is a massive cover-up by the government and I have been trying to --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: My point of order is this: For weeks I have been trying to find out -- no one in government knows -- how much Mr. Foley, the head of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., makes. The minister thinks he might make $100,000. He does not know; nobody knows. Why in the hell do they not know? They have a huge staff --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Do not turn this mike off on me.

Mr. Speaker: The console operator has just recognized who was giving directions. Thank you.

AGGREGATE POLICY

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Today's Toronto Star reports that yesterday the cabinet, meeting in secret, overruled an Ontario Municipal Board decision concerning some gravel pit operations near the homes of the Eaton family. The Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses reports that one family gave at least $13,500 to the Tories in the last provincial election.

Mr. Speaker, are you satisfied this is in order and that there was not a little bit of hanky-panky involved or at least some relationship between a donation of that size and that decision?

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the honourable member may well recognize that is not a legitimate point of order.

UNITED WAY CAMPAIGN

Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed with the business of the House, I would like to advise all honourable members that due to the generosity of the members and the staff we, the Legislative Assembly, have raised $833 from the auction sale and the fun fair today, to go to the United Way. I thank you all for your participation and co-operation.

Mr. Ruston: I think we should recognize the auctioneer.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, we should recognize that because the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) did such an excellent job in raising the price of that photograph.

Mr. Epp: Was that a legitimate point of order that you raised?

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure.

2:20 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report to the House on the revised funding arrangements we have developed to assist the Ontario hospital system to maintain its level of excellence in the current economic climate. To do this the government has provided us with an additional $110 million which will raise our spending on hospitals to $3.3 billion in this fiscal year. Many members will recall that this is more than the total health budget five years ago.

We have already advised all hospitals of the specific impact the changes will have on them, but I would like to review the general principles of the new funding formula for the members of the House.

In the past, when a hospital reported an operating deficit at the end of the fiscal year, that hospital would then negotiate with the ministry for a full or partial recovery of the amount of the deficit. This has led to an unhealthy debate on the question of underfunding versus overspending. To this end, the government has provided us with the necessary funds to make this a turnaround year in hospital financing.

The base which the ministry had used to calculate hospital budgets was established a number of years ago. Some hospitals argued that it was unrealistically low and this led to claims of underfunding. This will no longer be the case. All hospitals will be given a new budget base for the current year which is based on what they actually spent to provide services last year, that is the fiscal year 1981-82.

In order to bring that level forward to 1982-83, we will add to that amount an amount for inflation and an appropriate amount for increases in work load. We will further provide additional funds to cover fully the cost of salary increases negotiated under the inflation restraint program when it is resolved by the House.

In future, this new base will be used with appropriate increases to reflect the higher costs of approved services. We will not accept or pay for deficits incurred in this or future years. Because the budget of hospitals will be based on the actual amount they themselves spent in the last fiscal year, hospitals should indeed be able to continue the same level of service.

As my associate deputy minister said in his letter to all administrators, "Hospitals will be expected to manage in a manner which will neither sustain a deficit nor reduce services in a way that would jeopardize patient care." I should pause to clarify that: In other words, hospitals will not have any reasons to, or be permitted to, affect patient care by closing beds or withdrawing services.

We have offered to work with hospital boards and administrators who anticipate difficulty living within these new budgets and I have written personally to the chairman of each hospital board to ask for their assistance in dealing with the inflationary pressure on the hospital system.

The public of Ontario is very fortunate in the excellence of our hospital system and the government remains committed to maintaining that level of excellence. I know all members will recognize this commitment in the decision of my colleagues to provide us with the additional $110 million at a time when many other worthwhile programs are being constrained by the economic forces we face.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: When government policy is announced in the House it is customary that it be done before it is released to the press. The information contained in the minister's statement, along with the specific dollars applied to my community, were announced by the minister's colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) and were headlines in the local press yesterday.

Surely it is not proper for even the Minister of Health to use the many hundreds of millions of dollars that we are spending in hospital services for political purposes. If he is going to make the announcement of policy in the House, why should not the local Tory members make the announcement to the local papers after it has been made here? Surely it is against the privileges of the House that they once again run this sort of thing through the political machine as has become so characteristic in the recent months of this administration.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I might respond in this way. The hospitals have been waiting for quite some time to get the final determination of this question. As soon as it was determined by my colleagues, we prepared the appropriate letters and they were mailed earlier this week. I felt it important to get those letters out, and I know the hospitals will appreciate receiving them. I think some received them yesterday.

The information was shared with my colleagues earlier this week at the point at which those letters went into the mail. I will tell members why I am very comfortable sharing it with my colleagues. It is because my colleagues are part of the government which has to make the necessary and difficult decisions to support this program. They are entitled --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The members over there have the privilege of criticizing without any inhibition what we have done today and what we have done on previous days. My colleagues on the other hand have to go around and defend, and have to do so every year, the difficult job of raising money and putting taxes on the public to fund these things.

Given that situation, I am proud to be able to equip my colleagues to go out and defend what we do today as equally and as well as they defend on those days when we have to raise the money as well as spend it, to the degree to which they are prepared to defend the government of which they are a part.

The members opposite are part of the system which allows them to criticize it and we respect that right, and they have it now. These people are prepared to defend revenue raising as well as take credit for the decisions. Let us clarify it. These decisions are made by the government. They are not made in this case in this forum. They are decisions that have been made largely by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) in freeing up $110 million. Those decisions quite properly should be shared with my colleagues, defended by my colleagues and explained by my colleagues. I am proud to have had them out doing that for us as we mount this new expanded base for hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk for bringing that matter to my attention. I must confess I was unaware of it, but it does not in all honesty constitute a point of privilege, as you well know.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I gather in view of your saying that it is not a point of order or privilege, I would not be allowed to say --

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- that is probably the worst justification --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED PEOPLE

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would not mind being able to make an announcement in here without reading about it in the press first.

I would like to announce details of a five-year plan being undertaken by my ministry which will form the framework for the continued development of community living opportunities for the developmentally handicapped people of this province.

This policy of providing community living opportunities for those who are able to benefit from them has been a primary focus of this ministry since 1975. In those seven years we have had great success in promoting community living for developmentally handicapped people. Let me outline some of our major accomplishments.

In the area of community residential care, we have created 2,800 new places for children and adults. At the same time, we have more than doubled the capacity of our workshop and training program, from 3,600 places in 1975 to 7,600 on March 31, 1982.

Another highly successful program has been the introduction of the adult protective service workers who assist developmentally handicapped adults in coping with the day-to-day activities of independent living. These include such practical matters as finding accommodation and work, negotiating rents, making legal agreements and so on. There are now 130 adult protective service workers in the province providing support to over 6,000 clients.

2:30 p.m.

Since 1975, we have also developed a variety of services for developmentally handicapped children. One example is the parent relief program which offers short-term care for handicapped children so that their families can take vacations. Another is our special service-at-home program. Under this program, the province provides funding to parents to purchase specialized services for their handicapped children who have more complex needs; for instance, children who are developmentally handicapped and also have a physical disability.

As a result of the development of these community programs and services, we have reduced the population of our institutions over the last seven years. To give members a specific figure, as of 1980, 3,800 residents had left our facilities, with a net reduction in our facility population of about 1,200. Since 1980, the population has been further reduced by more than 200. Most of those who left were trained and placed in the community by my ministry.

I see that as a testimony to the wisdom of this policy direction and the very capable way in which this policy has been carried out in co-operation with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, its local affiliates and other agencies.

In the past seven years we have increased the annual allocation of funds for community services to the developmentally handicapped from $10 million in 1975 to $118 million in 1982. The projected expenditures for this year include: $49 million for residential programs; $29 million for vocational and prevocational training; $6 million for programming in homes for special care; $17 million for home support programs; $11 million for special needs programs; $2 million for community support programs for adults, such as community living courses and grants to district working groups; and $4 million for the adult protective service worker program.

In addition, we are spending $11.5 million for developmental day care through the day nurseries program.

We have now reached a point, however, that in order to continue with this process of reducing the population of our institutions and expanding our community resources we must consolidate our gains and adapt our plan of action to changing conditions. The five-year plan I am announcing today does exactly that. In other words, what I am announcing is not a new policy direction, but the next phase of an ongoing process that has already proven successful.

It is also a plan designed to reflect today's needs and utilize our available resources in such a way that they will best meet the requirements of all our developmentally handicapped citizens.

There are basically two elements to this five-year plan. First of all, and this is top priority, we plan to expand our community resources for the developmentally handicapped people of this province. That includes increasing community services to the whole range of developmentally handicapped persons.

Second, because of our past success in reducing our residential population, we intend, as the next logical step, to consolidate our institutional services by reducing the bed capacity of our facility system.

After looking at all options, we have concluded that the best way of effecting that reduction in bed capacity is through a combined action -- the further reduction of our residential population and the phased closure of six of our schedule I facilities. The provincially owned schedule I facilities are the facilities directly operated by my ministry.

Let me tell members what this five-year plan will mean in dollars and cents. Over the next five years, we plan to spend approximately $33 million in the expansion of our community service system. An estimated $10 million will be new money; the remainder, approximately $23 million, will be generated through the phased closing of these six facilities.

I want to quickly outline some of the ways we plan to spend the $33 million over the next five years. First, we plan to develop a number of supervised community living alternatives for children and adults currently living in intensive settings such as group homes who no longer require this kind of 24-hour supervision.

Basically, we see these supervised community living alternatives taking two forms. Under the first alternative, the handicapped adult lives on his or her own, probably in an apartment, with supervision and support appropriate to each individual's needs. Under the second, the handicapped individual is placed in a family home program. Here, he or she receives support within the context of family living. In addition, where necessary, there will be a worker assigned to assist a number of individuals and families.

We expect to develop 750 supervised community living places over the next five years. We also plan to provide funds to agencies to provide 1,881 new employment and training places. These new funds will be primarily directed towards more job-oriented training for developmentally handicapped clients.

In addition to these services, my ministry intends to expand our family support services. These include services such as the provision of in-home training to families with developmentally handicapped children. Since 1975, the system of family supports in Ontario has grown to the point where it now serves approximately 20,000 families a year. We plan to add 1,000 more families to that system.

We also intend to develop 250 community spaces for severely handicapped adults and 200 for severely handicapped children. Although we have created a large number of residential alternatives to institutions since 1975, few have been geared to the needs of the more severely handicapped. We hope to remedy that situation over the next five years.

Here is an important point: as one of the most positive aspects of this five-year plan, we intend to virtually eliminate the long-term institutionalization of children in schedule I facilities in this province. This brings me to the second part of this five-year plan designed to ensure a better quality of life for the developmentally handicapped people of Ontario.

As I said earlier, we also intend to consolidate our institutional services through the continued reduction of our facility population and the phased closure of six of our schedule I facilities. We intend to begin with the closure of the St. Lawrence Regional Centre in Brockville in the fiscal year 1983-84. This will be followed by the closure of the Bluewater Centre in Goderich in the latter part of the same year.

In fiscal 1984-85, the St. Thomas Adult Rehabilitation and Training Centre, the START Centre, will be closed; followed by Pine Ridge in Aurora in the latter part of the same fiscal year. We plan to close D'Arcy Place in Cobourg in fiscal 1985-86 and, finally, the Durham Regional Centre in Whitby in fiscal 1986-87.

During the same five-year period we also intend to reduce the population of the Oxford Regional Centre in Woodstock by 30 to 35 residents per year between 1983 to 1986 for a total of 173 residents. In order to determine which facilities should be closed my staff looked at a number of factors, including the following.

We looked at program considerations such as the proximity of alternative facilities and the suitability of the buildings for the programs we want to provide. For example, is the building accessible to wheelchairs? We were also mindful of the greater opportunities in a community setting for those residents able to move there.

A second factor was the effect on both residents and staff who would have to be relocated if a facility were closed. A third factor was the impact on the community of closing a facility in terms of lost employment and income. We also looked at the cost of operating, upgrading and maintaining the various facilities. The six facilities to be closed were chosen on the basis of a number of considerations including these four.

All residents living in these six facilities will be looked after in one of two ways. Those who are not able to move out into the community will be moved to other facilities. I think it is important to emphasize that this five-year plan will allow us to expand our community services while continuing to provide a high level of care to residents remaining in our facilities.

Those residents who are ready to take on a more independent lifestyle will be placed in group homes, supervised community living situations and other community alternatives. I am talking now not only about residents from the six facilities to be closed but residents from all our facilities.

We estimate the phased closing of these six facilities over a five-year period will mean an overall reduction of 1,163 ministry staff and 989 facility beds. In other words, we expect it will mean a better way of life in the community for a minimum of 989 developmentally handicapped residents. However, I emphasize that no resident will move into the community until we are assured that he or she has an appropriate place to go with adequate access to day programs. This is in keeping with the practice that we have followed for the last seven years.

I would like to stress as well that my ministry will also be playing an active role in the relocation of all surplus staff. Personnel officials will be conducting interviews with all affected staff long before the date of any facility closing. Information on vacancies within the facility system, as well as other government jobs open, will be provided to all staff.

2:40 p.m.

As I pointed out, one of the factors we looked at in selecting the six facilities was the proximity of other facilities and government settings. The idea here was to ensure the minimum personal disruption to all individuals, including employees affected by the closures. At the same time, employees will be assisted with the costs of relocation, including such items as trips to locate accommodation, movement of household effects, temporary accommodation and incidental travelling expenses.

I want to point out that in the past few years our ministry has had experience with a number of facility closures. Our record in finding alternative employment for the majority of those directly affected has been excellent and I believe reflects our concern and commitment to our employees. Given the long-range strategy I am announcing today, we have every hope of continuing that excellent record.

I started my statement today with a brief outline of how our system of community services has grown over the last seven years. The fact is this growth would not have been possible without the assistance and collaboration of many agencies, in particular the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and its local affiliates. We trust that co-operation will continue in the future.

In closing, let me say that over the next five years we plan to continue to expand and broaden our services to the developmentally handicapped people of this province and to do so in the most responsible way possible, with very special emphasis on the quality of human values and the humanity reflected in new opportunities for them to live and participate in the community to the fullest of their potential.

HALF-BACK PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to make a statement in the House which appeared in the press at any time, and I think this is it.

It is my pleasure to announce to the House that the Wintario Half-Back program will return on Monday, November 1, offering people in our province substantial discounts on the purchase of Canadian books by redeeming their old Wintario tickets.

As members will recall, the Half-Back program began in 1978 as an experiment to encourage more active participation in Canadian culture. Since then, more than 3.4 million Wintario tickets have been redeemed on Canadian records and feature films, the live performing arts, subscriptions to Canadian magazines and mass market Canadian paperback books. By all criteria, the ministry's experiment was a success.

Having refined and tested the program, we are now ready to launch it on a much-expanded basis, beginning with the Canadian book industry. Qualifying for discounts will be any book written by a Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, living or not, regardless of the book's language, content or publisher.

Starting November 1 and through into 1983, Ontarians will be able to redeem their old Wintario tickets to a value of 50 cents each at close to 400 participating bookstores and book departments across the province. Tickets from tonight onwards are eligible for the program.

The public may redeem Wintario tickets for a discount of up to half the retail price of a book or $15, whichever is less. For example, on a book that costs $16, one can receive a discount of up to $8 by redeeming up to 16 Wintario tickets. On a book that costs $40, the maximum discount is $15, for 30 Wintario tickets.

Members will be pleased to know that the Half-Back program was developed in response to requests from the Canadian book publishing and bookselling industries. The ministry has worked closely over the past six months with representatives of the Association of Canadian Publishers, the Canadian Book Publishers' Council and the Canadian Booksellers Association in designing the program.

The program should have a major economic impact on the book industry, an industry that makes a very significant economic contribution to our province. Recent figures show that Ontario based publishers and agents account for 83 per cent of all book sales in the country and 98 per cent of all English language book sales. Total book sales in 1980 were $900 million, of which $120 million or 14 per cent were for Canadian authored books. This percentage increases to 28 per cent when sales of books published by Canadians are added.

Thus, the Half-Back program will help strengthen the Canadian sector of the book industry. Its timing will coincide with the major pre-Christmas selling season and we are confident it will add significant new sales for publishers of Canadian books, open important new audiences and enhance the ability of Ontarians to purchase and enjoy Canadian books. If this phase of the Half-Back program is successful, it will be expanded early next year to assist other areas of cultural life in Ontario to include admissions to live performing arts and admissions and memberships to art galleries and museums.

In closing, I would like to invite all members of the House to start saving their old Wintario tickets now. In this way, they will participate in our efforts to tell Ontarians that culture is good business and that it contributes significantly to the economy of our province.

JOB CREATION

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I notice that the second-in-command of the Supreme Soviet over there, who likes to share matters like the purchase of Suncor with his colleagues who have to defend it, has not risen in his place to give us a statement on his views of the statement of Mr. Lalonde yesterday. Surely that should be one of the primary considerations before the House today --

Mr. Breithaupt: He should make a comment in the House.

Mr. T. P. Reid: In the House, yes. Does the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) not have something to say?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This being private members' afternoon, I would caution all members that we have a very strict time limit on ministerial statements and we are approaching it very quickly.

ONTARIO ADVISORY COUNCIL ON SENIOR CITIZENS

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to table the eighth annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens.

This report, like the seven before it, represents the very excellent work carried out by dedicated members of the council under the direction of Mr. Douglas Rapelje of Welland, who served as chairman with distinction for three years and as a member for another three years. At present, the chairmanship of the advisory council is in the very capable hands of Mrs. Fran McHale of London.

All members of the Legislature will receive a copy of the report today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the man who brought down interest rates, the provincial Treasurer. I share with my colleague a concern that the minister would not have brought to this House a statement this afternoon with respect to his response to the so-called mini-budget, as he called it, at least half budget, unbudget or statement of the federal Minister of Finance yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I believe it further reveals the contempt of these ministers for this House that we have dealt with today. We have repeatedly called on the Treasurer for a job creation program that expresses his own ideas. I think that has been mentioned 21 times or so since this House was called back. We know his projections for the provincial economy are completely out of whack, and unemployment is far higher than he predicted. Indeed, employment is far lower.

Contrary to his expectations, in May his ministry's latest estimates of gross provincial product for the second quarter of 1982 show not only a decline in real production for the fourth quarter, but a decline in current dollar production for the first time in 22 years, all of which speaks to the severity of the recession in this province. Will the Treasurer tell this House what he is going to do now that the federal government has announced this program? What are his plans?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question, as to why I do not have a statement, even the minister responsible in Ottawa did not call his statement yesterday a budget. In fact, he did not even call it an economic review. He stood up during normal ministerial statements in the House and presented it there. I would suspect it is without precedent that an hour and a half or whatever time it took has never before been used to present what I have to call a budget in that way.

Second, I point out to my friend that when the federal government has brought forward its budgets in the past, be they Conservative or Liberal governments, I have not reacted the day after. Please go back in the records to check. I have taken a couple of days at least before reacting, for the simple reason that I have learned --

Mr. Nixon: You sure crucified Crosbie.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I did not react the day after Mr. Crosbie's budget; I reacted two days after his budget. I have learned it is always wise to have my tax people look at the written documents that support these statements, apart from the rhetoric used to present them. In most cases we like to see the details before we jump to conclusions, and I would suggest that this is normal and prudent.

The balance of the question has been asked, as the member says, 21 times or more, and I would point out to him that he does not like the answers. I do not like the state of the economy. At least yesterday we saw some willingness on the part of the federal government to invest some of its reordered priorities in job creation. If my reading is right, they have put about half a billion dollars in the next 18 months towards that. I would simply like to compare that in quantum with the amount I had in my tiny budget, some one quarter the size of theirs, last May, when more than that was put into Ontario alone for job creation.

Mr. Renwick: No, it was not.

Mr. Breithaupt: You just reshuffled the deck.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is factually correct. I said before this statement came out that we stood ready to work with them. We do stand ready. Mr. Axworthy will be here some time this afternoon. I will be meeting with him and we stand prepared to co-operate.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is aware that this follows on the news of another set of firings or permanent layoffs of an additional 1,100 people at Falconbridge yesterday. He is aware of the report of the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy dealing with the auto industry, and whether he agrees with the conclusions or not it speaks fundamentally to the severe structural problems that we have in this province in the resource sector as well as in the manufacturing sector.

Is the minister going to have discussions with Mr. Axworthy about those very basic and deep problems? Is he going to address them? Is he going to use some of the moneys he has saved from the restraint program, anywhere between $440 million and $820 million, depending whom one talks to in his ministry? He has freed up money through the restraint program. Is he going to use it to deal with these structural and basic problems in the Ontario economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One point I would make about yesterday's comment is that control over the cash requirements of this nation has obviously not been well kept. That is not the fault of the present minister. Anybody who sees his cash requirements change by 350 per cent in less than --

Mr. Peterson: What has this got to do with the question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It has a lot to do with the question. The member just does not like to hear the fact that Liberals cannot manage money; that is what he does not like to hear.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to point out that through internal hard decisions, my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and I have managed to keep our spending, as Ontario Finances will show, to the predicted levels this year even though we have faced the same kinds of problems as the federal government. I have flexibility to help.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the job creation program the federal government announced yesterday will create very few jobs -- 10,000 to 15,000 in Ontario over the next 18 months, I believe -- would the Treasurer not agree that this, combined with a number of jobs that will be lost because of his wage control package, which is estimated to be around 12,000 jobs because of decreased consumer demand, will leave us no further ahead as a result of yesterday?

Does he not believe one of the things he should do, now that the federal government seems to recognize to a very small extent that jobs are the number one problem, is to withdraw the wage control package as part of a program of recovery in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker. The member for Windsor-Riverside has had some five weeks of talking to us both in this House and in committee on this issue. We fundamentally disagree. If what the honourable member says is right, all I need to do is double the salary of every civil servant in this province and there will be no problem.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Treasurer should talk about federal Liberals being able to manage when it was his criticism of his federal colleagues that helped lead to the defeat of the Clark government.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If it were not question period I would talk about the purchase of Suncor, the land banking, advertising, Minaki Lodge and a whole host of other wasteful topics.

The federal government has indicated it will put something like $500 million into job creation. The Treasurer indicated on the radio this morning that 40 per cent of those jobs created by the federal government would usually be in Ontario; that is usually the way the figures work. Is he prepared to put up an additional $200 million, therefore, which would be 40 per cent of what the federal government is putting into the program, for job creation in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Rainy River was at my press conference yesterday. He was getting his script from it, as I recall. I saw his comments in the paper afterwards.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unfortunately, I missed most of --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any event, there may have been some misunderstanding of the very issue the member mentioned. He has stated it correctly, by the way. Not all the press did, because the question came to me yesterday, "What part of the $500 million do you think the federal government is going to spend in Ontario?" My answer was, as the member said, "Forty per cent is about what we would expect, and that is about $200 million."

Somewhere else in the press conference came the question, "Are you going to match it?" That is the question the member just posed. I said at that time that until I have had time to talk to Mr. Axworthy -- and possibly to Mr. Lalonde, I would add today -- to see what the terms and conditions of their program are, it is very hard to say what is expected of us. Therefore, I have not said we have $20 million, $400 million or $200 million. We simply have to know what is required.

When we talk in billions of dollars, the impression is that it is a vast amount of money and that a billion dollars would solve all our problems. I think the member and the third party would agree that if we have a million and a half people out of work and if they each need $200 a week minimum through unemployment insurance to survive, that is $300 million a week; so a billion dollars runs about three weeks.

It really is not, in total, the kind of money that is going to solve the economic problems of this country. But no one program is, and I think we have to focus on that. The question is how much use is that going to be, particularly if it is aimed at people who are exhausting their unemployment insurance benefits.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the Treasurer's answer in view of the very exciting $750-million Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program which was going to solve all the problems of the world.

However, let me change to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. On Tuesday we had a discussion about the Cadillac Fairview-Greymac transaction and, as I recall, the minister stated in the House that he would be happy to invite Greymac Credit Corp. in to talk about its purchase of some 11,000 Cadillac Fairview units.

I am sure the minister is aware that yesterday, presumably under his instructions, the Tory members on the standing committee on general government defeated a motion by our party to have this whole matter investigated by the committee. I understand they also defeated a further motion to investigate it some time before the closing.

Is the minister prepared to have this whole matter investigated in some way or other, such as by a committee of this House? There are too many ramifications of this deal, too many unknowns. It has too big an effect on the rental market here in Toronto to let it go by unscrutinized. What is he going to do about it? Why will he not allow a committee hearing on this matter?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: First of all, Mr. Speaker, let us not leave, by innuendo, any suspicion in anyone's mind that this government is not concerned about the effect that interest rates are having on everybody and, in particular, the impact they have on tenants when the cost of financing and refinancing buildings is passed on to them. This is a real problem that we all have to face.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: With great respect, that has nothing to do with the question I asked. Why would the minister not allow an investigation?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The issue the Leader of the Opposition is raising today is the issue of whether there should be some large-scale investigation into the sale of property. Several sales of property take place each year. Is he saying there is some implication that Cadillac Fairview is acting improperly in this transaction? If he is, then he should say so publicly outside this room. Is he saying that Greymac Credit Corp. is acting improperly in some aspect of this transaction? If he is, then he should say so publicly outside this room.

I have received nothing to date to indicate to me that there is anything improper about the price or the reported rates of interest. I have indicated to the honourable member and to others that I am prepared to request that Greymac come into my office and discuss details of the transaction. Indeed, I have already written to Mr. Lumley requesting that the Foreign Investment Review Agency review the transaction.

Mr. Peterson: Oh? Why is that if there is nothing the matter with it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Because, if my friend recalls, there have been insinuations and concerns expressed in this House and by tenants about the impact of foreign capital in this deal. They are concerned about it. I think the minister should respond to matters that concern the public and should respond in accordance with their concerns. If the member does not agree with that, then he should say that too.

Mr. Speaker: Just before we move along: I am sure we all get caught up in the emotion and the excitement of the debate. I ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the reference he made a few moments ago.

Mr. Peterson: I was going to do it before you asked.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: What did he say? I was not involved in that.

Ms. Copps: He used the word "hypocrite."

Mr. Speaker: He used an unparliamentary word. He called you a hypocrite.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Well, does he want to meet outside and we will talk about that?

Mr. Peterson: The minister is pugnacious. I am saying to the minister what other people are saying to him; the executive committee of the Metropolitan Toronto council, for example. Is he aware of what transpired at the executive committee yesterday? Is he aware there is a great deal of concern by a lot of people? If he is insulated from that, then he does not know the realities of what is happening out there.

It is a huge transaction. It represents some five per cent of the controlled rental stock in this city. He knows there are implications with respect to the potential foreign involvement. That is only one aspect of it, one among many. Because a lot of this financing probably will be passed through and the tenants will be asked to participate in that, and because of the huge consequences, he has an obligation to look into that. I am asking him whether he will permit a committee to look into it. Why will he not?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The reference to the Metro executive committee is interesting, because I see reports in the paper now that some of them did not know what they were voting for.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The mayor included.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let me just indicate very clearly that the Residential Tenancy Commission, under the terms of the legislation, has an obligation to look into transactions. They have the authority to do so. If the authority is not sufficient, I have already indicated that I am prepared to look at that and review it. But they have certainly demonstrated quite ably that if there is anything in the transaction which was not appropriate, they can deal with it. I think that is the proper forum for rent increases to be dealt with.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I think it is unbecoming of a member of this House to suggest that another member step outside the House to deal with the matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I mean, I would dearly love to be invited --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will please resume his seat. There is nothing out of order.

Mr. Riddell: Let's retain the dignity of the House --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Tell him that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Riddell: I'll step out any time -- any time you want me to.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now that you have both had an opportunity to vent your frustrations, I will recognize the member for Etobicoke.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I do not want this thing to get carried away but, in view of the fact that this Legislature is looking at the question of family violence, I think it is not becoming of the House to have any member invite another member outside. I say that in all sincerity.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations tell the House why tenants should be paying for corporate reorganization, which is what he is allowing to happen? Will he impose a moratorium on the sale of large buildings until his government has in place legislation that will protect tenants from the kinds of exorbitant pass-throughs that this company and others are able to get on the sale of buildings?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated very clearly that the Residential Tenancy Commission is the place to review the nature of a transaction to make sure that it is an appropriate one and that the carrying costs involved in such a purchase are phased in over a period of time. I have indicated to the House that this matter is under review by the courts, but I support that principle and will continue to support it. I do not feel it is an issue that needs to be dealt with in this place but, rather, can be dealt with more appropriately at the time of the hearing.

Mr. Peterson: I would be happy to step outside with him --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Peterson: -- except I am afraid he would try to do to me what he has been doing to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) for years now.

The minister asked me to make some projections --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: If the member is casting aspersions on what I look upon as a very real friendship that has developed in this Legislature between a member of the government and a member of the opposition, then I think he should clearly think over what he is saying, because I think those kinds of things are very important in life. If he has some objection to it, let him say so.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to say that when the member for Sudbury East is in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I have never seen the minister so sensitive about so many things, and justifiably so. But he asked me some questions about Cadillac Fairview. There is no question that, by and large, Cadillac Fairview has been an exemplary landlord, but that is not the case with Greymac. The minister is aware, for example, that Greymac was convicted in 1980 of some 29 violations of city fire safety, building, plumbing and zoning standards.

When they are going to become a massive landlord, as it appears they will unless there is an investigation, perhaps we should be looking into these matters. That is what I am suggesting to the minister. I am also suggesting that he is blind to the realities here. We have an opportunity to look into this situation, and it should be done by a committee of this House. Why is the minister stonewalling it?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have heard the allegations about other properties owned by Greymac, and I already have a member of my staff verifying those comments at city hall. That, of course, is one of the matters I will be speaking to them about when I meet with them in my office.

3:10 p.m.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer, who has waited in vain through three budgetary statements by the federal Liberal government over the past year. As the last statement, yesterday afternoon, indicates probably the final word of the Liberal government on their job creation program, and as it contains no long-term employment strategy and obviously no help for the restructuring of Ontario's economy in either the resource sector or the manufacturing sector, can the Treasurer tell us precisely what he is prepared to do to create permanent jobs in Ontario, or is he simply going to tag along with the ad hoc federal program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I assume that is not the final word of the government. If it were, I would have thought the Minister of Finance would have called it a budget. The only way it may be final is that, one hopes, as a government they may be defeated by the only legitimate alternative to them in Ottawa, a party I think could do a heck of a lot better running this country than Mr. Trudeau's government has done in the past few years. I simply say that.

Mr. Cooke: That's why you opposed their one and only budget.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You were not so big on Mr. Clark.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Obviously there is not going to be some sudden, magic solution to the problem. I would be the last to say that. I have tried to say in this House and in other places that economists for a change are at least starting to agree the economy is moving up instead of down.

Mr. Renwick: It is not and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Renwick: Please respond.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have tried to point out that even people like Mr. Beigie, who I believe was before the committee the other night, and a number of others have said the measurable human statistics that are very real to the honourable member and myself are not going to get better. They probably will get worse; I am not denying that.

One suddenly does not turn around an economy, but we believe a couple of things in last night's statement were good. Last year's most disastrous November budget did more than impose a set of taxes; it destroyed a set of beliefs in this country that one was rewarded if one took risks. Last night, I saw a glimmer of a return from that socialist viewpoint expressed by the federal party.

Mr. Foulds: Can I ask the Treasurer to set aside his ideological straitjacket, his rhetoric and his cant for the moment and answer very simply how long he is going to wait for the economy to turn around?

What steps is the Treasurer going to take to begin the hard work of restructuring and rebuilding Ontario's economy when it is evident, as he admitted earlier today, that at best Ontario is going to get 24,000 short-term jobs over the next 18 months, when unemployment totals more than 500,000 people and when the number of jobs, which averages out to 1,333 a month, will not even match 1/10th of the number of exhaustees on unemployment insurance who will be coming on to the scene in Ontario on a monthly basis over the next year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend certainly plays with figures. I do not know where this figure of 1,100-odd jobs a month comes from. He likes to put everything in concrete terms. Unlike him, I really do not believe governments by themselves can solve the kind of problem he is talking about. Every time a party like his has gotten into power in this world it has destroyed the economic system, it has never made it work.

The member has a naive, academic belief that socialism works; it does not. The only thing that will work is a return to a consumer market society. That is going to happen slowly; it is not going to happen overnight. People like the member continue to destroy the confidence of consumers in this country. That is one of the essential ingredients of a turnaround.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we have an opportunity to deal not only with short-term problems but also with long-term problems. Is the Treasurer going to be talking with the federal people about productivity in the Ontario economy? Is he going to be talking about apprenticeships and on-the-job training while we have an opportunity, when things are not at the most highly productive level, when companies and industries now have time perhaps to train or retrain people, because they are not using their capacity at 90 or 100 per cent as they are usually? There are opportunities here.

Is the Treasurer going to be dealing with those kinds of problems so that we will have a trained work force to handle the jobs when the world economy turns up?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the other night in the committee, while listening to briefs, I was commenting that I accepted as a statement of fact something said by Mr. Clifford Pilkey. I do not always agree with Mr. Pilkey. I agreed with the one thing he said, though, when he said productivity in Canada was not lower than it should be because we had a bunch of lazy workers --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Nobody said that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, no. He was simply saying -- I am not implying those were the member's words -- that productivity depended upon the tools given to workers so that they could use them in a more useful and productive way. I accept that.

The question then is, under what circumstances does a country get its industry into a more productive stance? First, there must be savings or foreign investment. We either generate the money in our own economy or people bring it in and put it into our factories. It happens that when things are very slow, savings are low --

Mr. T. P. Reid: But they are not. They are the highest they have ever been.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am talking about the savings available in factories for reinvestment, not the savings in the hands of consumers, which are high.

One has to take away from all those savings that consumers have in the bank the money governments borrow, because that is the only money that is left over for productivity improvements. That is one of the areas where our country has major difficulties, and that is one of the reasons we in this part have continued to stress the importance of a prudent fiscal policy.

If we borrow all the money back that people put into the bank just to run the country for services we have not taxed them for, then obviously nothing is left for productive increase.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. We have some temporary jobs out of yesterday's statement. We do not know what he is going to do to tag on to that. What is his government prepared to do? There was nothing mentioned yesterday, and the Treasurer did not answer this question earlier today; nor was there anything in his budget in May about the structural problems in our economy.

We could mention another report that came out which pointed to the structural difficulties of the auto industry in our province. We know the problems in the resource sector and the machinery sector. All the minister has done at this point is to institute a few technology centres, and that does nothing about the basic problems in our economy.

What is the Treasurer going to do? What new programs is he willing to institute rather than continuing to flag around the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, which has done nothing about those deep-seated problems in Ontario's economy?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, I suspect the honourable member did not want us to put those tech centres in. I argue that is exactly what is attempting to attack the structural problems. We have to get productivity improvements. The member's friend the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) just talked about that.

Why do we have a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing centre? Why do we have a robotics centre? Why do we have an auto parts technology centre? Those centres are there to assist companies to learn how to use modern technology. If the member told the government to do that, he should not criticize it. If the member wants to jump on the bandwagon now and pretend it is his idea, I say to him, please jump on.

Mr. Cooke: The minister does not even know what he is going to do with them. He does not even have terms of reference. It is the phoniest con job he has ever tried.

Hon. F. S. Miller: May I suggest, then, if the member believes all that nonsense --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I caution all honourable members that more than half of question period has gone by. We are still on leaders' questions. With all respect, I think there is too much time being used up on interjections and responding to interjections. Does the Treasurer have a further reply?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

3:20 p.m.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I point out that I have had seven minutes so far. I want to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and bring up the matter of Greymac again.

In view of the fact that the Greymac takeover is threatening the security of nearly 11,000 tenants in the refinancing of the Cadillac Fairview units, and in view of the Toronto Star story today that Peter Pocklington is trading 2,584 Toronto apartments to American interests, will the minister tell me what the government and he are going to do to protect the interests of the tenants who face huge increases simply as a result of corporate reorganization?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to think that all of us, since 1975, have recognized the need to give some extra protection to tenants in terms of the expense that is involved in renting housing accommodation.

What the honourable member is really talking about is whether society should start intervening in the right to exchange and transfer property. The member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) has a resolution before the House on that very issue, the issue of interfering with the fundamental rights of people to own and transfer property.

Surely what the member should be interested in is the capacity of the Residential Tenancy Commission and its commissioners to look into the realities of the transaction to see whether it was a legitimate one, at arm's length, without collusion. Although I have some assurance this can be done, if other things are needed to make certain that it is done, then I am prepared to look at them to ensure that those transactions can be seen through and that the transactions are fair.

Surely the member for Port Arthur, as a member of this Legislature, will agree that this is the fundamentally sound position to be taking.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not think it is also a fundamentally sound position to be taking that the tenants have a right to housing? Does he not think that is a fundamental responsibility of his?

Can the minister tell us what objection he has to a one-year moratorium on the refinancing and resale of large buildings? Can he also tell us why tenants should face huge rent increases to finance the takeover of the buildings they live in by either foreign or domestic interests?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Again, we are getting down to the fundamentals. On the one hand, we have a rent review process and a commission to evaluate the legitimacy of the transaction. I support that. On the other hand, the member is saying the government is not interested in the availability of housing stock when he knows very well that is flying in the face of the activities of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) --

Mr. Foulds: You mean the inactivity of the minister of housing. What are you talking about? You had some credibility, but don't defend that cluck.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: His activities are innovative and go beyond what anyone has been able to achieve anywhere in the country.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Has he bought another house, Bob?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Surely the member must look on the rent review program in the way I thought most of us did from the beginning. There was a shortage of housing. Tenants did not have a choice, because of the housing shortage, in terms of their ability to go to a less expensive one. As a result, there was a need to step in and make certain that if there were to be increases they were in line with the cost pass-through principle, which is a principle this House approved and which members on all sides have said was a sound one.

I said on Tuesday, and I will say again, if we have to examine some aspects of the program and review them to see if they need to be updated and changed, I am prepared to do that. But I do not think the member should try to pretend that he cares more than we do for the tenants' rights. My goodness, this program was introduced by this government in 1975 and has continued long after the wage and price control program of the federal government was abandoned.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the minister's only response to this grave situation has been to write a letter to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. What we want to know is simply this: Is that all the minister is going to do, or does he have something else up his sleeve that he will declare later?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think I have answered that question in great detail today and the day before yesterday.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not agree that it is unreasonable for landlords to pass through the financing of 85 per cent of the acquisition cost of a building? Why does the minister not change the guidelines so that tenants will not be paying for the buildings that are underfinanced by landlords?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, let me go through once again what I have gone through before. I mean this quite sincerely. At present, as the honourable member knows, the commission makes those decisions about guidelines --

Mr. Philip: You have the power to make regulations by legislation.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member will hang on and listen, he may get the answer he wants. If he does not, however, he will not be surprised.

The guidelines have established that financing shall be no greater than 85 per cent of the transaction. Therefore, it is assumed that equity of at least 15 per cent is required. By guideline it is also assumed to be reasonable to phase in those financing increases over up to three years, but on occasion it has been more than three years.

That very principle has been challenged in court by a landlord, and it is going to be before the court shortly. I have indicated, and I am indicating now, that I think both those principles are sound and have to be preserved. If the court upholds the landlord's position, then we will have to seriously review them.

I have also said I am prepared to review whether there should be variations in the amount of equity in all or some situations and whether there should be some variations in the phase-in period of financing charges in all or some situations. That has to be a reasonable response to the situation, and I hope reasonable men will accept it as that.

PENETANGUISHENE MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Health. I will preface my question by congratulating the minister on his announcement today. I think it is a step in the right direction. I say sincerely that at least he has recognized some of the problems in one area of health care.

I want to direct the minister's attention now to another area of health care about which he has also professed a concern, the area of mental health. I wonder whether the minister is aware that there have been four suicides at the Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre in a period of a little more than one month, from August 22 to September 26 of this year. Three of these deaths took place at Oak Ridge, one receiving considerable publicity.

One of the residents, and I think this is most important, was on H ward in a social adaptation program, which at best can be described as cruel and unusual punishment. According to the schedule I have here before me, that program stipulates that the patient can speak only to other members of the program and the staff, and only with staff permission. That leaves at least one of the patients in the program in a situation where he is not allowed to communicate with anyone from the outside world for 23 out of 24 hours a day.

At the time of the death of one of the patients, he was confined in an eight-by-ten cell with a steel sink and toilet as a punishment for inappropriate laughter while watching television. The cement slab had no mattress during the day.

Will the minister accede not only to requests from the Ontario Public Service Employees Union but also to calls from people across the province who would like to see a public inquiry into the conditions at Penetanguishene?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I begin by saying that, had I known the honourable member was going to be kind in her opening remarks, I would have paid some money on behalf of the United Way to kiss her at noon today. If the offer is still open, perhaps she and I could go outside afterwards.

Mr. Peterson: She would not stoop to that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not even for the United Way? For the United Way I would stoop to that.

Ms. Copps: I think he meant stoop in the other sense.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should tell her leader I have given her my track suit on occasion, which she has worn.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are quite concerned about the number of suicides that have occurred this year. Because of that, we are having a look at the situation to see what all the circumstances were surrounding those sad events.

With regard to the specifics the member has raised, I am not sure whether they come out of the allegations or whether some of them may come out of the inquests that are going to be held in one or two of those cases. I can assure the member we are acting on all of those.

The question of whether we should have a public hearing or royal commission on these things is one that has been raised for some time. The clear choice of the ministry is to proceed with the necessary changes as we see them. A royal commission would take two or three years. I do not believe it would turn up much new evidence that the ministry does not already have at hand.

The report Madness, which the unions put together last year, was a pretty thorough review. I do not happen to agree with all the conclusions arrived at, but it also enumerated some of the problems.

3:30 p.m.

I have to believe the steps we have taken, the reorganization inside the ministry to specialize in the area of mental health, taken together with our shortly-to-be-announced patient advocates and community advisory boards, will go a lot further and faster than any royal commission would towards solving some of the problems.

I would not suggest there are not problems that cause me concern because there are, but I think we have identified the problems. I also think we are moving on the solutions and I would not want to see all that work held up or put in suspension for a period of two or three years while we catalogued, once again, what I think has been well catalogued both inside and outside the ministry.

Ms. Copps: The question remains whether the public at large can be satisfied with another in-house inquiry.

I refer the minister to a full-page article that appeared in the Globe and Mail some two years ago on a program called medication awareness and compliance, which existed at St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital, where Connie, along with two to 12 other severely disturbed misbehavers, was confined to two small barren rooms in St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital for more than 23 hours a day.

That same MAC program is currently in operation at the Penetanguishene facility. There was an in-house inquiry two years ago. Why does the same situation still exist? Why were four people brought to the point of taking their own lives within the space of 33 days at Penetanguishene? That deserves a public inquiry. The people of Ontario want to know what is happening in the mental institutions across the province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the inquests are going to serve the precise purpose the member identifies, which is to find out what caused those tragic deaths. That is why we have the inquest procedure. There has never been any suggestion that not all the evidence and information has come out at these inquests.

The circumstances which the member refers to particularly are going to be available to the public. They can assess for themselves whether the ministry is responding to whatever shortcomings those inquests turn up. Indeed, if we did not, we would be subject to appropriately strong criticism.

I am satisfied and I can undertake to the member that any particular shortcomings that might be turned up in those inquests will be dealt with very expeditiously by us if indeed they are things which should be actioned.

Ms. Copps: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The minister may not be aware of an inquest into a previous suicide in 1980. I have a copy of the report from the coroner's office and none of the recommendations made have ever been implemented by the Penetanguishene hospital.

Mr. Speaker: That was not a legitimate point of order and therefore does not deserve a reply.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of privilege: With all respect, my answer did not indicate that every recommendation of an inquest would be implemented. I was rather careful to say those portions of an inquest that should be actioned by the ministry will be actioned.

CHILD RESTRAINT DEVICES

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Why is it that a government that spends $40 million in advertising can only spend $125,000 to inform parents of this province of the content of the child restraint law, the knowledge of which is a matter of life or death?

Can the minister tell the House exactly what he has done to inform parents, as opposed to police and hospital officials, as to the actual content of the law and their responsibilities under the law, since it takes effect next Monday?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have not attempted to contact each and every parent in Ontario directly.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: First, can the minister tell us if his ministry has done any form of radio or press advertising as opposed to posters and brochures?

Second, at a time when we have almost 600,000 people unemployed, and since these devices will cost between $50 and $100 for parents to acquire, can the minister tell us why the ministry budgeted only $40,000 to the Ontario Safety League for their rental program, most of which money was used for administrative purposes? Why is the ministry discontinuing its funding at precisely the time when the demand for rental units is bound to increase, and especially in the current economic climate?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have had no request from the Ontario Safety League for funding additional to what we have already agreed to provide. To my knowledge there has been no request from any other organization for funding for the rental program. I am very much aware of a number of rental programs being undertaken by service clubs in many communities across this province. They want to undertake this program as a service club activity within that community and have not asked for government funding.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is the minister in a position to tell us whether he has yet been able to persuade his colleague the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) to drop the proposed sales tax on these items, given the fact that these items are now mandated in law and are by no means a luxury?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of fact, I have not discussed this with my colleague the Minister of Revenue. I did discuss it with the man who is responsible for those kinds of decisions, my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), some time ago -- in fact, before the budget considerations. At that time the decision was that they would not be exempt from tax.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Hennessy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation and Communications and it concerns the withdrawal of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. from negotiations with Can-Car of Thunder Bay on the construction of the H-6 cars. Is there any truth to the allegation that Can-Car management is asking for a guarantee of $200,000 or $300,000 more on each H-6 car before an agreement can be signed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I quite understand the request for a guarantee of additional money before a contract can be signed. I might help the honourable members of the House -- and I have already notified you, Mr. Speaker, that I have an answer to a question that was asked on Monday when, unfortunately, I was not here. I was in northern Ontario at that time.

The Toronto Transit Commission decided about a year ago that it wished to start a procurement process for the purchase of additional subway cars for the Toronto subway system, with an initial order for 26 cars, or perhaps a maximum at this time of 60 cars, which might eventually lead into a requirement for 100 cars.

At that time I believe the TTC distributed to the prospective bidders a package of information. It was not a tender call, because the commission has not, to my knowledge, to this date authorized a tender call. They submitted a package of information to bidders, which included Hawker Siddeley, Thunder Bay and Bombardier in Quebec. Then I had correspondence from Hawker Siddeley asking that this not be a tender call but a negotiated contract with Hawker Siddeley. At this time Hawker Siddeley and the UTDC were in discussions, and still are, as to joint venture arrangements that might be very beneficial to both companies.

In the meantime I had correspondence from officials of Bombardier, who wrote to me because of the suggested upcoming tender call. They wanted reconfirmation of my assurance given to them some time previously that as far as we were concerned we would not ask Bombardier to bid again on projects unless I could guarantee them that there was going to be no interference with the bidding process. As members will understand, this came about because of the government's decision on a previous occasion to give preference to Hawker Siddeley and to negotiate a contract even though bids had been called. I am not particularly against giving preference to Ontario suppliers or against a negotiated contract, but I am against doing so after bids have been called.

At that time, as I say, a request followed that from the Toronto Transit Commission asking for our concurrence in having the TTC consider a negotiated contract with Hawker Siddeley for the supply of these cars.

3:40 p.m.

At that time, the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley were in the process of a draft agreement for some joint venture in marketing and manufacturing processes, not only for subway cars but for light-rail vehicles and other types of vehicles, and to try to assist Hawker Siddeley in getting export orders as well as commercial business.

I wrote to the TTC and gave my concurrence for it to negotiate with Hawker Siddeley for the supply of the 26 cars provided it was satisfied it was getting a price that was in the range of the North American market for such vehicles. The last report I had is that negotiations between the company and the TTC --

Mr. Mancini: Is this a statement or an answer to a question?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want an answer, or not?

Mr. Riddell: It is a pretty lengthy answer to a question asked by one of your own party members.

Mr. Wrye: You should have made a statement. You didn't need to make the Wintario statement.

Mr. Mancini: Why didn't he make a statement?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you don't care, go back to your office.

Mr. Riddell: What are we supposed to expect? It is a setup question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, members on both sides of the House are assisting me in making my decisions and I appreciate that, although it is not always necessary. To make sure there were no charges or allegations from this side of the House, I was going to make a statement at the end of whatever question or answer the minister may have had. He was going on at some length, with all respect, and I was going to lengthen the question period for a period of two minutes to compensate for the length of time he was taking.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: First, I had not completed my answer. Second, I was not only answering the question from my colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who has been very interested in this matter, but I was also answering a series of questions which were asked of my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) in my absence on Monday. He passed those questions on to me. I am answering questions from all three parties in one answer and I cannot do it in a few words.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that is generous. However, because of the length of time the leaders' questions took today, I was not really going to grant your request. I had thought we could hold that off until tomorrow morning. However, I think we should deal with the question asked by the member for Fort William.

Mr. Hennessy: Is there any possibility of negotiations being reopened between the UTDC, the TTC and Can-Car of Thunder Bay in regard to the H-6 Can-Car contract? There are hundreds of people out of work at that plant and the people of the city of Thunder Bay are very anxious. If anybody thinks this is a setup, he has his head screwed on wrong.

Mr. Ruston: That's the way to go, Mickey.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Transportation and Communications; do not comment on the second part.

Mr. Kerrio: What you are saying is they don't treat you any better than they treat us. Come on over, Mickey.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am well aware of the situation with the Hawker Siddeley plant in Thunder Bay. Negotiations are ongoing between the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley on other matters. There are no negotiations going on between the UTDC and Hawker Siddeley on this subway car requirement because Hawker Siddeley has proceeded to negotiate directly with the TTC. It has submitted its negotiated price, as I understand it.

I have been told by the officials of the TTC that they are not able to recommend to their board the award of any contract based on the prices that have been submitted because, based on any calculation they can use taking previous escalated prices or market price into account, they consider them to be very excessive. I understand that the TTC will now be recommending to their board, the senior management, that an open tender call be made for the cars after the first of the year.

They have suggested to me that they might like to make this a worldwide tender call, or a no-restricted tender call. I have indicated to the TTC that, from my standpoint, I would not want to see tenders called on these cars beyond the boundaries of this country.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Why is there a requirement that Hawker Siddeley be involved in a joint proposal with a crown corporation? Why should there be such a condition imposed on the private sector, such as Hawker Siddeley, and why should 900 people be put out of work in Thunder Bay as a result of this foolish requirement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, this had nothing to do with 900 people being out of work. There would be another 200 or 300 people out of work right now if my ministry had not advanced an order for GO Transit cars.

First, to answer the honourable member's stupid question, there is no requirement upon Hawker Siddeley to enter into any joint venture with the UTDC. This has been an ongoing relationship between these two companies. I have received a letter from the president of Hawker Siddeley, Mr. Tanner, within the last week advising that he wants to continue negotiations with the UTDC on ventures that can be beneficial to both companies.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to caution all honourable members. There is nothing to be gained in the use of inflammatory language and in casting aspersions on other members' questions, and I would ask all members to use a little restraint, as they would in normal situations and circumstances.

Mr. Foulds: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the minister why it is he had to give his concurrence to the TTC to enter into a negotiated type of contract with Hawker Siddeley UTDC, and what the conditions on that concurrence were when he gave it? Can he explain why it was that Mr. Savage was quoted on the radio, at 6:30 a.m. on Monday in Thunder Bay, as indicating that the financial considerations between the TTC and Hawker Siddeley were not an impediment to proceeding with the contract?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, first, I cannot understand the statement which I read in Hansard, made by the honourable member, who said that Mr. Savage had made that statement at 6:30 on Monday morning. The honourable member heard it. I do not say he did not hear it. I do not say Mr. Savage did not make it. I said I cannot understand it because I know the details and I know the tremendous financial difference that was the reason for them not wanting to proceed.

As far as the first part of the question is concerned, it is a well-known fact that when we are financing 75 per cent of the cost of acquisition of capital projects by transit authorities, or for roads, or for bridges, or through the Ministry of Education in financing school properties, it is the requirement that public tenders be called and the contracts be awarded on that basis. When the city of Thunder Bay goes to buy four new buses, they normally go through a public tender process and my ministry subsidizes 75 per cent of the cost of the low bid unless the low bid can, for good reason, be thrown out. The member knows the way it works.

If I were given the time I could list the number of contracts Hawker Siddeley has received over the past 12 years and the number that have been negotiated and the number that have been tendered. Out of the 11 contracts that Hawker Siddeley has received in the last 12 years, eight of them have been from either the TTC or the Ontario government, and all of those, except one, were negotiated.

The reason they asked for my concurrence to negotiate was that they were bypassing the competitive tender procedure. At that time both Hawker Siddeley and the UTDC were in this negotiation, and it was not solely because of that, but we did authorize them to carry on negotiations. However, we did not give them a blank cheque to spend whatever they wanted. We said they had to get it for a price that was competitive.

3:50 p.m.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill 159, An Act to revise the Planning Act.

Bill 194, An Act to amend certain Acts in respect of Planning and related Matters.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Energy be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry of Energy, ministry administration program, $6,101,900; conventional energy programs, $3,218,000; alternative and renewable energy program, $25,985,900; energy conservation program, $28,862,800; regulatory affairs program, $2,326,700; and energy supplies program, $62,240,000.

Mr. Kerrio: Under protest.

MOTION

MOTION TO SUSPEND NORMAL BUSINESS

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, that the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the current and continuing crisis in the rental housing market in Ontario and, in particular, the impending disastrous consequences for thousands of Ontario tenants arising as a result of a recent residential rental property transaction between Cadillac Fairview Corp. and the Greymac Credit Corp.

Mr. Speaker: I must direct the attention of the honourable, the Leader of the Opposition, and all honourable members to standing order 38 and standing order 39. Standing order 39, if I may just remind you, states, "No motion, or amendment, the subject matter of which has been decided upon, can be again proposed during the same session."

I further refer to Lewis, on page 39, which says: "Any matter which has been the subject of a motion or amendment decided in the House cannot again be brought forward during the same session."

May's Parliamentary Practice, on page 368, under the heading, "Matters already decided during the same session," states: "A motion or amendment may not be brought forward which is the same in substance as a question which has been decided in the affirmative or negative during the current session. The rule may be fully stated as follows:

"No question or bill shall be offered in either House that is substantially the same as one on which judgement has already been expressed in the current session."

Beauchesne, of course, the fifth edition, page 150, paragraph 416, is substantially the same as the 19th edition of May.

Therefore, by the authority under standing order 38, I am of the opinion that a motion which has been offered is, indeed, contrary to the standing orders of this House.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I bring your attention to two matters. First, the motion that was dealt with in this House on Tuesday was accepted by you as being in order. It was not debated per se. The only thing that was decided was the rejection of the ability to debate it last Tuesday by the members of the government party. The motion then was: Shall the debate proceed, meaning should the debate proceed that day? We divided on it, and the majority found that the debate should not proceed that day.

I would submit to you, sir, that while consideration was given to the very matter you have put before us, we feel in the official opposition, which has put the motion to you today, that we are not dealing with the same matter. The matter that was dealt with then was whether the debate should proceed that day, Tuesday. We are requesting and suggesting in our strongest terms that the government might be persuaded, because circumstances have changed slightly.

At the time, I believe it felt that there were matters of even more urgent purport that should be dealt with and that, in fact, the motion was that the debate proceed on that day. It may well be that, circumstances having changed somewhat, it is possible that might be carried out.

It is true that the wording of the motion is the same. You found it yourself to be in order and it was only the fact that the debate was not allowed to proceed on that day that was set aside.

I urgently request that you give further consideration to allowing the five-minute arguments at least to be put to you, sir. It might even be that, as on a previous occasion, we can have unanimous consent of the spokesmen and, therefore, of the members on all sides for the debate to proceed. I would certainly ask that, if not on the former basis then on the latter basis, we be allowed to proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking for unanimous consent.

Mr. Nixon: If you are not going to consider the alternative, I would so ask.

Mr. Speaker: I think, with all respect, I am bound by the rules of the House and my interpretation thereof. I have explained that so I think it would be in order for you to ask for unanimous consent.

Mr. Nixon: Under the circumstances, I do ask for unanimous consent that the debate proceed.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?

Agreed to.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I fully understand this new area we are into. I gather I have 10 minutes to address this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your co-operation. I thank the government House leader and the other members of this House. We in our party do feel this matter deserves a public hearing. I must say to you, sir, I am not happy about an emergency debate in the sense that it leads to no resolution, but it does at least give us an opportunity to air some of our very sincere concerns on this matter. I am hoping it will go further. We are asking, of course, for a committee hearing on this matter.

There are many ramifications involved in this issue. I know that the poor, beleaguered Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who is becoming just a trifle more sensitive lately than I have ever seen him before because of the onslaught he is receiving on this whole matter, not only from his own members but from members of the opposition, too --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Just your bad manners.

Mr. Peterson: Well, we will not get into that. In spite of it all, he is not a bad fellow. I believe he is just wrong on this issue. I believe that either the instructions he has decided to follow for himself or the instructions he has been given by the cabinet are wrong in these circumstances. I want to point that out.

There are many issues involved here and fundamentally we would like to have an open hearing. We have watched the progression of the minister's thought on this matter. Originally, he did not even think there was a problem, and some time after that, he did not know it was going to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Gradually, under pressure from some tenants' groups, he said he would send a letter to FIRA to see if there were some untoward circumstances surrounding the financing of Greymac Credit Corp., that is, whether some foreign money was involved.

4 p.m.

There is a lot of mystery surrounding this company. We do know some facts about it. We know that the president of the holding company is one, Leonard Rosenberg. You may not know him personally, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you know his brother, Morley, who will be joining you in a semi-judicial capacity as a member of the Ontario Municipal Board. His wife, I gather, is the president of the company, and he is the chairman.

Greymac has also been involved with Axelrod Holdings in the notorious 790-800-840 Eglinton Avenue West situation. Greymac holds a blanket mortgage on all three properties in the amount of about $3.6 million, I am told.

I am also told -- some of this, Mr. Speaker, I cannot prove. I wish I could prove it; what we need is a committee so that it can prove some of these things -- there was a $500,000 brokerage fee for the arranging of that mortgage. The reality is that those buildings are in the centre of a controversy in the city with respect to condominium conversion. We know that certain of the principals were involved in the purchase of Crown Trust with one Joe Barnett, who sold his interest in that, as I understand it, to Mr. Rosenberg and to Greymac Credit Corp.

I am telling the minister a lot of circumstances surrounding this need to be looked at. If this was just one building it might not be all that severe, but we are talking of a transaction of such size and proportion it is going to have major consequences for the rental market in Metro Toronto, some five per cent of the controlled stock affecting the lives of some 20,000 to 25,000 people.

The minister said to me today, "Are you suggesting Cadillac Fairview has not been an exemplary landlord, or that there is anything untoward about it?" I am not suggesting that for a minute, because the fact is to the contrary. Cadillac Fairview, to the best of our information, by and large has been an excellent landlord in this city. I am one of those who are sad to see them exit from that capacity.

Very frankly, up to this point at least, that has not been demonstrable in the case of Greymac Credit Corp., whoever they are in all of their various emanations. We have a group of tenants who have enjoyed the landlordship of a group like Cadillac Fairview and who have been treated well. I understand Cadillac has never come forward to the rent review process. Now we have the spectre of those tenants financing these major transactions. Without much imagination, one can easily see increases in rentals of 30 per cent, 40 per cent, 50 per cent and 60 per cent. When we are facing the prospect of some 11,000 units with 20,000 to 25,000 tenants' rents going up in that proportion, then we have a major problem.

The minister can make all the speeches he wants about nonintervention, about free property transaction and all of that, but I will tell him, we have already lost our virginity in this issue. We are involved now in a massive rent review program in this province. At the present time we are involved in a massive restraint program. We are involved deeply in the functioning of the marketplace. No rhetoric will change what the minister's party has done any more than what my party or the members of the New Democratic Party have done. We are dealing with real social problems that we have to address now.

The example of this particular transaction has to be used to look into the wider applications of the rent review legislation. It may not be up to date. I recognize the problems. I also recognize the problems the minister has been faced with. If he wants me to, I can quote to him what some of his people have said; what the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) and the member for Wilson Heights (Mr. Rotenberg) have said to tenants; what the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) has said as opposed to what some others and some of his back-benchers have said over the years. He should not think he has been all that consistent, or that the same noises are coming out of his government. He knows there is a social problem and he knows it is growing.

What we need is an investigation of this particular deal and then see how that applies to the functioning of the legislation. Perhaps the rule of 85 per cent amortized over three years is no longer appropriate. We know interest rates are coming down; it may take some pressure off in those areas. On the other hand, it may not. We also know that one of the was around the rent review legislation is to keep rolling them over so that those financing costs can be passed on to the tenants.

We are involved in a very difficult question of balancing the rights of the landlords and the rights of the tenants. I do not take the completely one-sided view of the people to my left, who by and large do not talk a lot of sense economically on many issues, in my judgement. But I do not take the hands-off view the government takes either, and I do not take the view that we should just walk away and do nothing because we see a problem coming.

I make this prediction. We are going to see questions in this House. The members opposite are going to see the apparatus of their rent review board spend a great deal of time and effort trying to untangle a mess that we can see coming. Surely some of the genius in life has to be to foresee problems and prevent them. I think we have a right to talk publicly to Mr. and Mrs. Rosenberg and people involved in the Greymac Credit Corp. to find out what their intentions are and how they intend to finance this package.

I gather the minister has said he is going to have them in to his office at some unspecified time in the future. Perhaps he has arranged an appointment, perhaps he has not. But that, very frankly, is not good enough for us at this time. In view of the size of it, in view of the capacity it has to lead on rents right across the city, in view of all of the circumstances involving Greymac and the people involved I think the government has an obligation to hold a public hearing.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Peterson: I had the opportunity in the last day or so to run into a number of people involved in the real estate business in this city who are very aware of these circumstances. They came to me and said, "David, you are on the right track." These are people I fully expected would say, 'You have no right to stick your nose into this kind of transaction." They said, "It bears scrutiny." These are people I respect.

Going back to the old-line rhetoric the minister used on me today and yesterday, which I do not honestly believe he believes all that much deep down in his soul -- and I am not calling him a hypocrite, and I apologize for any personal innuendo or suggestion I have made in that regard -- I think he knows there is a problem coming, and I know it is very difficult for him to handle it.

I am giving him the best advice we can give from our side of the House: the only way to prevent this problem is to have an open inquiry right now. I ask the minister to use his best judgement to do this at the present time, because if he does not, he is walking into a major problem. He now has the support of the executive committee of Metro council.

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Peterson: They know it is an issue. I will not read it into the record, because I am not being allowed the time to do that. But more and more the ground swell is developing of people who are concerned about this deal in all its aspects. I would suggest that if the emergency debate we are having today does nothing more than air the issue, I hope it at least will allow the minister to change his mind and take the responsible course.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the original motion and, indeed, to deal with the fact that there is a crisis. I am pleased to see that, after seven years of voting with the Conservatives and against the tenants, the Liberals have finally had a deathbed repentance and come around to our point of view.

They voted with the Conservatives in 1977 to allow all the loopholes that allowed this kind of crisis to develop. For seven years they voted against the tenants; now for one year they are voting for the tenants. Where were the Liberals in 1977 when our party moved the amendments requested by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations? They were there, voting with the Conservatives and the landlords when we were trying to plug the loopholes that have created this kind of crisis.

The fact is that when the Liberal Party had an opportunity to make a difference, when there was not a Conservative majority where they stood no chance of getting through the kinds of things the tenants were asking for, when they had an opportunity to make that change, they voted with the Conservatives, they voted against the tenants and they voted against the very amendments the tenants asked for. Now, when the government has a majority, it knows the changes it postulated are not going to take place.

4:10 p.m.

We support the need for this debate. We support the fact that there is an emergency, an emergency not just created by Cadillac Fairview, or by Peter Pocklington's high-flying companies, it is a crisis created by inadequate bills passed in 1975 and in 1977 by the Liberal-Conservative coalition. That is what we are dealing with.

In 1977, we in the New Democratic Party warned that today's crisis would occur unless the act was amended, unless the loopholes were plugged. This motion is a condemnation of the inadequate legislation of 1977. This motion is a condemnation of the Liberal-Conservative coalition of 1977 which put forward legislation that was clearly aimed at doing more for speculators and landlords than for tenants.

The Liberal Party should not be changing its name to the community party in York South, it should be changing its name to the flip-flop party. Just as it flip-flopped on the matter of teachers' rights to strike -- and are voting for a very regressive act in this House that will take away that right -- it also seems to think it can flip-flop on tenant issues.

I challenge the Liberal Party to move. Where was it when it moved the Residential Tenancy Act in committee to gradually phase out rent review altogether? That was its policy. It has never taken that off its books and that is still its policy, to phase out rent review entirely, community by community. Where was it in talking to its federal counterpart, Paul Cosgrove? There are the hypocrites.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There is that dangerous word again.

The Deputy Speaker: I say to the member for Etobicoke that I must admit we are getting carried away in the debate. The word "hypocrite" referred to people in general, no one specifically, but he should take a drink of water and start again.

Mr. Philip: How about the issue of extending rent review in 1975 and 1977? It was the Liberals who voted with their Conservative colleagues and exempted thousands of people from any kind of rent review protection whatsoever. Where were they when the tenants needed them in the minority government? They were there with the landlords. They were there with the Conservatives.

In his comments on Tuesday, the minister talked about the great program of the Conservative government in providing for rental housing. The fact is, as the University of Toronto urban analyst has said in a recent issue of the Toronto Star, "Landlords and investors, not tenants, are the chief benefactors of the rental loan program that is costing the Ontario taxpayer so much."

We have advocated a very clear-cut program to the minister today in this House. We asked the minister why is he not prepared to call a moratorium for one year, or however long the government needs, to correct the mistakes which he says he is presently studying. The minister refused to answer that question. In fact, he stated that he is now looking into it. If there is a problem, if it is a problem worth looking into, why can he not do as the city of Toronto has now requested and have a moratorium until he can deal with the very problems that he has been looking into and that his predecessors have been looking into for seven years?

We are dealing with not just a crisis of two companies; what we are facing is a crisis we in the NDP have been pointing out for seven years, a crisis created by the Liberal-Conservative coalition in 1977. Now that the Liberals have found the tenants' end at last, maybe the Conservatives can also find it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, the opposition has spoken in support of a motion that I suggest has three components. First, there is the suggestion that the government is not endeavouring to address the shortage of rental housing in the province; second, the rent review process that is in place may not be adequately serving the citizens of the province; and third, the right of owners of commercial-residential properties to sell those properties should be subject to some unusual sort of scrutiny.

In particular, I gather by insinuation that if there is any foreign money involved in this acquisition this may be undesirable and should be examined even beyond the scope of federal legislation, namely the Foreign Investment Review Agency.

With respect to the first issue, on Tuesday I outlined pretty completely a number of innovative steps this government has taken with respect to its efforts to provide increased rental housing. I will not review those again today.

The second issue relates to the rent review process itself. We all know the existing rent review program was put in place by this government in 1975 because of our shared concerns about exorbitant increases in rental accommodation that were not subject to any scrutiny, It was reviewed and revised again by an all-party committee of this Legislature in 1979 based upon the principle of a six per cent guideline with a pass-through of costs in excess of that being subject to a review process.

It is also pretty clear that principle of cost pass-through, which did not and does not take into account return on investment, met with general approval, and particularly with the specific approval of the former leader of the Liberal Party of this province, when he said, "We feel that the present system of cost pass-through is reasonable."

I was also interested to note that on Wednesday, August 18, the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), acting as an agent for the tenants in a rent review hearing, commended the commissioner when he awarded a 12 per cent increase based on the cost pass-through principle and called it a sound decision.

Of course there have been various views expressed from time to time with respect to the six per cent guideline. The former Housing critic of the Liberal Party indicated on one occasion that the ceiling was unrealistic. The member for Waterloo-North (Mr. Epp) and the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) indicated the ceiling might have to be raised.

Mr. Philip: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If the minister is going to quote one sentence, perhaps he would add the other sentence in that article that said that we in the New Democratic Party would not change it. He is trying to mislead the House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I read it as it is reported. In any event, it is clearly on the record that, although one member of the Liberal Party feels that rent control is economic insanity but a social necessity, as a Legislative Assembly we have endeavoured to put in place a system that, by and large, tried to treat landlords and tenants fairly. I think it has served the tenants of this province well.

It is true that in earlier years very few buildings and units were going to rent review. I think we all have some understanding of why it is happening now. The leader of the New Democratic Party was quoted on August 8 as saying the main reasons for the increasing costs that were being passed through were higher interest rates and energy costs. He is right on.

The House knows this government is very supportive of a variety of measures aimed at reducing inflation and therefore reducing interest rates. Present trends in these areas are encouraging and one hopes the trend would result in a lessening of the need to come to rent review because of these additional costs.

Last year some 17 per cent of units went to review with landlords requesting an average of about 20 per cent and the commission allowing an average of about 14.7 per cent. By and large, I think it is fair to say that tenants in this province have continued to be well served by that program. Those tenants who are being required to pay increased rents are doing so because of costs that are beyond the landlord's control.

I might also add that by guidelines the commission has endeavoured to phase in financing charges over a period of years and has set a minimum with respect to equity in the acquisition of properties. Their right to do that, as I said before, is now being challenged by one landlord, but these are principles that I believe have to be sustained and perhaps even reviewed with respect to whether or not the phasing-in period should be lengthened in some or all instances and whether or not the equity down payment should increase in some or all instances.

I say quite clearly that if it is a program that needs to be reviewed, I am prepared to do so, and to respond to legitimate complaints. I say that because the government recognizes quite clearly that inflation, with the consequent interest rates, has played havoc with the lives of many people in this province. If anything reasonable can be done to improve the system in order to ease the impact of those increases, of course the government is prepared to consider them.

Further, the Leader of the Opposition was directing his attention to the sale of properties. There have been many properties purchased and sold over the years, but we have before us at the moment a particularly large sale which affects a large number of people. I can understand the concern and the anxiety tenants have about the prospect of rent increases of undetermined amount.

4:20 p.m.

Let me say clearly that in my view the commission does everything within its power to make certain that transfers of properties are legitimate. I know there are some who have suggested that it may not have sufficient power. Let me be frank and open by saying I have no hesitation in indicating my desire to be certain there is no collusion in property transfers, that they are at arm's length and that the acquisition price is fair and reasonable. If the system does not produce those results then we have to look at it to ensure that it does.

As a result of recent increased funding, the commission has hired additional staff to specifically investigate property transactions. In this regard, I do not believe it serves the tenants well to increase their anxiety about a situation before one knows exactly what the details of the acquisition are.

I have indicated I am prepared to request a meeting with the owners of Greymac and will be pursuing that. I have also written to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in Ottawa requesting that the proposed sale be examined by the Foreign Investment Review Agency to determine whether any aspect of the sale might offend the rules of FIRA as it applies to foreign investment in Canada.

I am not quite certain whether the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting by innuendo that there should be some investigation of the Cadillac Fairview sale to Greymac. He has been much more explicit than that. I know of no one who is suggesting that Cadillac has not been exemplary, and neither is he suggesting it. I do not have any reason to believe there is evidence that Greymac will not be a good landlord as well. I will certainly explore those things when I meet with them.

I do have some concern about the innuendo that one should be able to interfere with the sale of property. I am sure that is what the member for Waterloo North was thinking of when he introduced resolution 39, which called for an amendment to the Charter of Rights guaranteeing the right to enjoy property and that this right should not be interfered with other than through principles of natural justice.

I am also somewhat taken aback by the position of the Leader of the Opposition. He will recall that on July 5, 1977, following a speech by the then Liberal member for Sarnia, he supported the government's withdrawal of the Land Transfer Tax Act as it applied to the acquisition of commercial, industrial or residential property by nonresidents. Let me quote verbatim what he said then: "It takes them quite a while to see the light. We have felt it should be withdrawn for a long time."

In summary, it is my view that the government is endeavouring to address the shortage of rental accommodation as best it can in most difficult times. If the rent review program now in place needs some reconsideration in the light of legitimate complaints, I have no hesitation in indicating I will do that.

Finally, the most certain way to avoid the undesirable increases facing tenants in this province is to deal with the cause, which is high interest rates in response to inflation. I assume we can count on the support of both opposition parties as we endeavour to face that real issue.

The Deputy Speaker: I need some agreement in the House. In my error, when switching with the Speaker, I was under the impression we had unanimous consent and hence started the debate with five minutes each per party and then into 10 minutes. It is now my understanding it was 10 minutes to begin right off the bat.

As a result, I allowed the member for Etobicoke to speak for only five minutes. Is it agreed he has another five minutes? Agreed. Then we will go to the official opposition, back to the third party again and then to the government.

Mr. Philip: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we are essentially dealing with is not just the resale of buildings, it is the problem that occurs when a building is refinanced as a result of that sale.

I do not agree with the minister's position that somehow he does not have control over the guidelines whereby the rent review office works. In fact, it is within his jurisdiction to inform any tribunal that is under his jurisdiction what the policy of the government is.

I happen to think the pass-through to tenants of financing of 85 per cent of the acquisition cost does not make sense. I believe in any other business one would expect an investment of more than 15 per cent of the cost of procuring that business. To pass on 85 per cent of the acquisition cost to tenants is simply unfair.

It was pointed out to the minister's predecessor on February 5, 1982, by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations, and I happen to believe it also, that the largest single factor in increasing rents under rent review is the turnover of buildings and refinancing. I suggest to the minister that he must come to grips with that problem.

The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing conducted a study on rent review. It came to the same conclusion as that reached by the federal government, namely that rent review should be abolished or phased out. One of the greatest disappointments in that report, which has been tabled by the minister, is that it does not contain the most essential element of this problem, namely the effect of financing on rental housing.

The ministry commissioned Price Waterhouse to do a survey of landlords and a questionnaire that contained a comprehensive section on financing was sent out. Yet for some reason this government has decided not to publish the results of that questionnaire. They turned out a report that says what some landlords want to hear, that is, to do away with rent review, without dealing with the most essential question of financing.

I ask the minister to ask his counterpart the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs (Mr. Bennett), who is not here for this debate, "Why did the government, at taxpayers' expense, commission a study which asked essential questions and then did not report the answers on those essential questions?" I suggest the answers are there but the government did not like the answers it received, so did not publish them.

The whole question of financing is one we must look at. We in the New Democratic Party have been looking at it over the years. We have introduced one private member's bill after another with not only our own suggestions for changes but changes which have been recommended by university and tenants' groups.

We have suggested to the minister that if a landlord is allowed to justify a rent increase because of financing, there should be an automatic decrease if those interest rates come down. Those of us who have represented tenant groups before the rent review commission over the last couple of years know very well there have been many large rent increases because of mortgages that were in the 20 per cent or 21 per cent interest bracket.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Philip: Surely it makes sense for the government to come to grips with that problem and for the minister not to cop out and say, as he does, "Let rent review decide what the guidelines will be," but rather come out with very specific guidelines that say that if a landlord has been able to increase his rents substantially on justification of larger or higher financing, upon termination of those mortgages there is to be an automatic review; and if the mortgage cost has gone down, the savings to the landlord are to be passed on to tenants. The minister, like his predecessor, has refused to deal with that even though we brought it to his attention well over a couple of years ago.

I am saying that we in the New Democratic Party --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Philip: -- several years ago asked for an inquiry into the effect of speculation in land and apartment buildings and the escalation of rents as a result of that speculation and turnover of buildings. We suggested some very concrete, specific ways in which that could be stopped.

Unfortunately, this is the result of a bad bill in 1977, one that the Liberals and Conservatives co-opted for on the side of the landlords. This is an opportunity for this minister, who I think has more empathy and more understanding than most ministers I have seen in this House, to really do something about these problems. I respect this minister more than I respect most of the ministers in this House. I am asking him to be empathetic to these concerns and to do something about the problem.

The Deputy Speaker: I thank the member for Etobicoke for his co-operation.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. Spensieri: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of my leader's motion to reinforce the emergency nature of what is transpiring across Metro Toronto and particularly in my riding, Yorkview, where some 10 per cent of the units that are proposed for sale happen to be situated.

In my riding, we have a community known as University City, where at the three distinct addresses of 1, 35 and 40 Fountainhead Road, and at 470 Sentinel Road, some 1,100 units happen to be present. The tenants have been tenants of these buildings from their very inception, since their construction. This project, with all credit to Cadillac Fairview, has represented one of the most stable of the residential districts in my riding.

All that is now threatened and put into jeopardy by a large transaction which, by the very nature of its size and of the secrecy surrounding its particularities and circumstances, does require, I submit to the minister, the closest investigation.

I regret, as does my leader, that we have had to choose this forum to address this problem because a more suitable forum would have been a committee, such as the standing committee on general government, where I attempted yesterday to bring this matter to a hearing, a resolution and a determination.

We had the legitimate and perfect right to do so, because the report of the Residential Tenancy Commission could have been considered by the general government committee yesterday and, as part of that consideration, the more specific issue of the residential guidelines and rulings as they impact on this transaction could have been discussed.

The reason we were given for not hearing this matter of moment, this matter of tremendous and urgent importance at this time when the transaction is to be consummated, was that we would cause mental anguish on the part of the contracting parties. Can one imagine mental anguish on the part of the likes of Rosenberg and Cadillac Fairview?

Consider the mental anguish to residents who have lived in my riding and in the particular buildings for more than 10 years and who are now faced with potential rent increases of 60 to 70 per cent.

I say to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) that we might have had more luck yesterday if his persuasive powers had been used in the general government committee, where he should have been to support my motion to have the matter heard then and there with full powers of subpoena and full powers of bringing the matter to a hearing.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I was not there because I am not a member of that committee and because I was then in the honourable member's riding dealing with his constituents on some multicultural problems.

Mr. Spensieri: That is only because of the pending municipal election. The New Democratic Party alderman, a Mr. Foster, has had about as much aptitude in dealing with this matter as the minister. Mr. Foster has dictated, but not sent, a letter to the Foreign Investment Review Agency requesting that the matter be reviewed. I do not know whether the minister has dictated and sent his, but perhaps he is a little further ahead.

Mr. Philip: On a point of Mr. Foster's privilege, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: You are stretching it; only because I made a mistake on your 10 minutes.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, it was only after Mr. Foster raised the issue that FIRA agreed to look into the matter. Mr. Foster, unlike the Liberal candidate for alderman --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. You have made your point.

Mr. Spensieri: The point is that this Legislature is the sole body that can deal effectively with the pending problem. This Legislature has been requested to do certain clear things. First, it has been requested to set up specific guidelines for this transaction so the matter of the refinancing charges may be brought to the attention of the purchaser and the purchaser may be put on caution that he will be halted if he proceeds on the assumption he is going to pass his financing charges through.

If we do not put that purchaser on notice, if we do not put him on caution then, under the existing guidelines of the Residential Tenancy Commission, he has the perfect right to expect rental increases of 60 to 70 per cent. That is the nature of the emergency.

This Legislature has also been requested to amend the Residential Tenancies Act to extend the period over which the financing charges may be spread from three to possibly five or six years. Once again, that is a specific thing which only this Legislature can do.

The Legislature has been requested to indicate that during the one-year period of restraint it will limit any pass-through increases to five per cent. Only this Legislature can do that. To invoke the Foreign Investment Review Agency and other bodies and other levels of government is futile.

This is a matter of tremendous importance, not only to my riding but also across Metro. We have a purchaser who is of dubious character and of dubious capacity to take on the residential unit which Cadillac Fairview now seeks to dispose of. To say we are going to be loath to look into this transaction because it interferes with the sale of property is to introduce a red herring.

No one is talking about restricting the right of owners to sell their properties. No one is even suggesting this right ever should be interfered with except when it involves dubious financing, tinged financing, dubious transactions and non-arm's-length transactions.

When it impacts on the ability to obtain increases because of these financing charges, we are not then dealing with the sale of property or with the right to conduct a sale of property but with manoeuvring in such a way that financing charges are arranged in a manner calculated to bring about exorbitant profits. That is the issue and that is why this Legislature must now give guidelines.

I am not about to say that there has been some collusion on the part of Greymac and Cadillac Fairview, although one would have every ground to believe there is a possibility that Cadillac Fairview may be buying from Cadillac Fairview, using the front of Greymac through its Swiss sources to funnel through its profits earned offshore.

This is one more reason and one more element this Legislature has to consider when deciding whether to review this matter with the depth and degree of speed it deserves.

Another reason for the emergency is that this transaction, which was scheduled to close on November 16, is likely to be advanced because of the flak that has been raised by my colleagues in this House and to some extent by our colleagues in the third party.

We would not want to be faced with a situation where the counsel acting for these parties proceed to an expeditious, hasty closing of the transaction so that afterwards there would be no opportunity whatsoever to deny them the right to seek these exorbitant increases which are now permitted.

I see I have only a few moments left. In concluding, I wish to say that the executive committee of Metro Toronto council has requested this Legislature to act. This is the only way we can request this Legislature to act because of the majority situation. Every other avenue has been closed to us. Even the legitimate manoeuvre of introducing, in the standing committee on general government, specific consideration of a specific issue as it related directly to the Residential Tenancy Commission report was blocked by the chairman of that committee, the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow).

For that reason this debate, being our only avenue, must be continued, and this House must resolve that the matter go back to the standing committee on general government for close scrutiny.

4:40 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I was expecting someone to rise on the other side, Mr. Speaker. What a silly thing for me to have expected. Leaving the minister high and dry again to fight his own fight, the former alderman from ward 5, not feeling strongly enough about this to rise --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. This will not be on your time, but just to clarify it for the government side: The Speaker's chair had made a mistake regarding the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip); he was granted only five minutes instead of 10 minutes. So after the minister had concluded, we went back to the member for Etobicoke, followed by the official opposition; now we are back to the third party and then we will go back to the government side.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Ah, the intricacies of the legislative ordering of business are just amazing.

I rise to support this strange motion that has conic before us again.

Mr. Kolyn: Strange motion?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, it is strange indeed that we seem to find that things are out of order one day and the next day they are in order, even though they are the same darned thing that was provided the day before.

The whole question of what is in order in an emergency debate in this House has become a total mystery to me. We find the housing situation to be of urgent and pressing concern today whereas on Tuesday it was not. We found the Sudbury debate to be of urgent and pressing concern one day and not the next. We found the situation of people who are bearing the brunt of the problems of housing at this point in Ontario, those people who are on fixed incomes and welfare, not to be of urgent importance. Maybe I should reintroduce it today and it would be in order today.

I find this whole thing quite bizarre, and I find it especially bizarre when it comes from the provincial community Liberal tenants' landlord party wage control association of Ontario. I find it strikingly amusing that the same party that for years impeded the fight to bring tenants' rights and real rent review into this province has now decided all of a sudden, because it knows it is losing badly in York South, that it is going to bring forward this legislation for its own tactical purposes.

It is absolutely ludicrous to me that this should be purported to be an emergency of major concern to the Liberal Party of Ontario, the community party of Ontario or whatever it happens to be.

The member from that party who last spoke mentioned that this is not a matter of taking away rights from landlords. By God, it is; and let us not kid ourselves that it is not. What we are talking about here is the conflict between landlords' rights and tenants' rights, and one cannot just add to tenants' rights without taking something away from the landlords' rights. When one starts to talk, as a councillor in Toronto has done, about a freeze on the right to sell or to refinance these major buildings, one is talking about taking away a right from landlords. One cannot have it both ways.

There has to be some protection for the rights of tenants, but one of the major failures of this government has been that it has not protected tenants' rights. What we managed to get through during those years of minority government was just a start, just a tiny step in the development of tenants' rights. One of the major reasons it did not go any farther was that the party over here to my right, the community party, the Liberal Party, the tenants' association party of Ontario, did not support those rights and voted against them.

Mr. Eakins: You need a good meal, Richard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have had many a good meal, and I feel very good about it and in great form today myself, even if the member for Victoria-Haliburton does not find my speech that way. I must say, he was in great form himself today in the kissing booth. I was very impressed by his activities there.

Rent review is a disaster at the moment. I find it strange that the minister does not understand that. He gets up and says how it is working. He must be working from old statistics, because in my riding at the moment tenants' rights are just being destroyed all over the map. I am not sure whether refinancing and the kind of scam that may or may not be perpetrated here in the case of Cadillac Fairview has been happening in my riding, but there are certainly scams where within families they are selling properties back and forth to each other.

The renovation stuff that is going on is destroying the whole area of my riding. The Beaches area at the southern part of my riding, which has had a wonderful mix of individuals, old and young, and which has been a very stable rental community for the past number of years, now is being renovated in such a way that they throw out the tenants, do minor renovations, during which the tenants could have stayed there, and then double the rents.

Basically, they are changing a whole community. A whole new form of blockbusting is taking place. This abuse of demolition permits is happening all over the city, all over Metropolitan Toronto. I am sure the former alderman from ward 5 is going to rise and speak to this. It is being used as a systematic technique to destroy the notion of rent review.

To say that rent review, as a piece of legislation, does not need a major overhaul at this point is to miss the point of the problems that people are finding in terms of being able to find affordable rental accommodation in the city of Toronto at present.

One element that has to be looked at, and it is a major element, is this whole business of refinancing and the use of that 85 per cent pass-through of financing cost; but by God, there are so many other things wrong with that bill that we need to get at it right now and look at it.

I am totally in favour of the notion of a freeze at the moment on those high-rises. I understand it as being an abrogation of the rights of landlords to have free sway in terms of how they look after the sales of their assets. I understand that, but there are thousands of individuals who have the right to a home, a basic and fundamental right, and that right is being taken away from them because of the financing deals that are being tricked around the present rent review system. Probably they are often totally within the rules, but people are losing that very fundamental right.

In my view, there is a question of priority of rights. Should people have the unlimited right to profit from property or should people have the basic right to be sure of their accommodation? These two rights are in conflict here. Let us be very clear about it: I come down on the side of the tenants and the right to have shelter they can afford.

We have to tie that in, I think, with what is going on in housing all over this province at the moment. It is a fact of life that people who are renting today are paying a larger portion of their salaries into their accommodation cost than they ever have in the past. We know that is the case. It is becoming harder and harder to afford even to rent in this day and age, and 30, 40 and 50 per cent of people's incomes are going into rental accommodation, If they happen to be on fixed incomes, or if they are among the more than 60 per cent of welfare recipients who are out in the private market, they are paying 80 or 90 per cent of their income into accommodation. That is the crisis; that is an emergency.

People cannot be expected to exist when they are spending that kind of money on accommodation in Ontario, and that has come about. Not only are there people paying that much money, but also they are all trying to get into public housing. What has this government done in public housing? The answer is, almost nothing in the past five years. As a result, we have more than 30,000 people trying to get into public housing in Metropolitan Toronto at this point.

Anybody who has a constituency office and who is sitting in this Legislature today knows that when trying to get people into Ontario Housing Corp., if they do not happen to be just about to be killed by their husbands or are not beset by the direst circumstances in the world, we are talking about a year and a half time period.

That is simply a total failure of the housing system as we have it in Ontario today. It is because there is no construction of public housing. It is because there has been no major commitment to the co-operative housing sector to create housing space, when it would have a major proportion of subsidized spaces.

That is why we have people on the streets. That is why the plans of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) to help welfare recipients are essentially fraudulent. He did a wonderful piece of public relations. He is essentially giving them five per cent and those who are getting the extra rental subsidies are going to have to pay 25 per cent of that extra cost of their rent out of their food budgets.

There is no real acceptance over there of what is going on in our community. This Cadillac Fairview business is just one example of people being disfranchised or people not having the right to have a home they can afford.

In the one minute I have left I want to say that there will be people on the streets this winter or lying on the floors of hostels or on the floors of churches all around Metropolitan Toronto. There will be people lining up for the soup kitchens, which the minister does not like to call soup kitchens but missions.

That is what the real housing crisis is in this province. But that housing crisis was ruled out of order in this House as not being a pressing concern just a couple of weeks ago. Now we have a gimmick being presented to us by the Liberal community party of Ontario because they are in trouble in York South and they know it.

4:50 p.m.

Mr. Cunningham: You may have another chance at the leadership the way your guy is going.

Mr. Ruston: Richard for leader.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: At any point, if anybody on this side would like to bet me $100 right now --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- that John Nunziata will not be elected, let him stand up.

Mr. Eakins: You should be out there with the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will bet anyone right now that John Nunziata is going to lose by thousands of votes and that the Liberals are going to be embarrassed and wiped out in the western part of Toronto.

The Deputy Speaker: Does anybody want to bet that your time is up?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Does anybody want to take it on? There are no takers. I will sit down. This thing is a preposterous scam because they are in difficulty. That is all it is.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to participate in this most important issue being debated in the Legislature this afternoon. I am particularly pleased to participate because it is of great importance to the constituents in my riding. A significant number of my constituents do live in rental accommodations, and a significant number of the apartment buildings within which my constituents reside are owned by Cadillac Fairview. A very large number of their buildings are in my riding; so this is an important issue and one that obviously concerns all members of this Legislature.

I say all members because it has been suggested by members of the opposition that the members of the government party are less concerned and interested in this issue than the members of the opposition party. I clearly point out that this debate would not have proceeded this afternoon if unanimous consent had not been given by the Legislature, which means that the government totally endorsed this debate going ahead.

It is interesting to note that the opposition members made much of the fact that it was not convenient to proceed with this emergency debate on the last sitting day of this House. Today it is convenient and it is timely and appropriate that it proceed. The minister has indicated in his statements that he has the same concerns all the other members of this House have.

It is regrettable that suggestions were made by the speakers that the minister was less than totally concerned in this issue. That is ironic coming from members of the opposition when we only have to look at the impeccable record of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), not only in his present portfolio but also when he represented all the working people in this province when he was the Minister of Labour. He has an impeccable record and one that clearly shows his deep and genuine concern for the working people of this province, for the people who reside in their own homes, for the people who rent their own living accommodation. There is a deep, genuine concern there. I want to set the record straight in that regard.

The minister has clearly stated this afternoon that if there is a need to improve an already good system of rent control, he will take the necessary steps and measures. I think what concerns the minister, as it concerns me and the other members on this side of the House, is that we, as the government party, have to undertake the concerns of this issue based on the facts. We have to separate fact from fiction.

I guess the opposition members are entitled at times to perhaps take licence in intermingling fact with fiction. It is noted here in particular during this debate this afternoon that a great amount of speculation has been introduced into what were originally touted to us as facts that concern the opposition.

I listened with interest the other day when this debate was first brought on by the Leader of the Opposition and the five-minute debate proceeded. At that time, he said he wanted to talk about the facts that were leading to the impending disastrous consequences of a major real estate transaction as they related to thousands of Ontario residents.

I was looking for the facts on which he made that sweeping statement the other day. I was looking for the facts today that gave him cause and concern to suggest that thousands of tenants in the city are going to be walking the streets in the near future because of the finalization of this very significant real estate transaction.

Here are the facts that have been brought forward by the Liberal Party to date.

On Tuesday, the facts were simply that there was a very low vacancy rate in residential accommodation in this city and in the province. That is not new. It was pointed out that on average the rent increases have not been holding at six per cent but have been in the area of 10 to 12, 14 per cent. That is not new.

Those facts do not specifically relate to this particular real estate transaction. So I was looking forward with interest today to learning the specific facts that are giving him the cause for concern. When he started out this afternoon, he said, "Here are the facts." I thought, "Here comes the real revelation."

After that great buildup, what were the facts that related to this real estate transaction? We got the name of the president of Greymac, one of the two parties to this transaction. It is right on the record. He gave us the name of the president of Greymac. They are the facts he brought forward on this transaction. From that point forward, it became conjecture.

The conjecture is that as a result of this transaction going through, the rents of tenants of those buildings owned by Cadillac Fairview will go up, as he stated, by 30, 40, 50 per cent. That was not good enough for his colleague the member for Yorkview (Mr. Spensieri). He wanted to inflate it even more. He suggested a few moments ago, "They are going up 60 and 70 per cent." He is no shirker. Let us really roll out the major increases.

They are not based on one germ of fact. We do not have before us the particulars of this major real estate transaction. Because it is so major, obviously it concerns all of us. But, as the minister said, he will deal with it and meet the concerns when we have the facts before us.

The integrity of the system has not been brought down because of this pending real estate transaction. It certainly is putting it to the test, and that is what is giving us concern, but until the facts are before us, I do not think that we should be going off making wild statements such as the member for Yorkview has made, that we are dealing with tinged financing and with exorbitant increases of 60 and 70 per cent.

Those wild assertions are not based on fact. Given the fact that he is one of the members of the learned legal profession, I am surprised that he would be making such inflammatory statements. The only thing I suggest that is tinged, with regard to his statements, is that there might be a tinge of slander in what he has been saying about these two parties to this very major and, as far as I understand it, very legitimate business transaction.

The fact of the matter, if we want to get down to the facts, is that we have a system in place. It is one that has integrity and it has stood the test of time since its inception in 1975 and its refinement in 1977. We all know about the six per cent level and what inflation has done to that, but it still maintains the system.

Tenants who call me and ask what is happening to a landlord who is asking for a 23 or 24 per cent increase say, "Why is this being allowed to happen?" I simply have to remind the tenant that landlords may ask for that; they may ask for the 60 or 70 per cent that our friend the member for Yorkview likes to bandy around at random. The fact is that they might ask for it, but they cannot get it until it is subjected to public scrutiny under our residential tenancy legislation. There is the protection. It is intact. It will remain intact before and after this transaction is consummated.

5 p.m.

The minister has indicated that if there is anything that would indicate the size of this transaction or the number of tenants involved in this one, singular undertaking would somehow impair the integrity of the system, he is prepared to take the remedial measures that would be necessary. But there are no facts to indicate it is going to pull down the system, as was implied by the opposition parties. We have to bear this in mind and separate fact from fiction.

With regard to the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the fact that it is foreign money, offshore money, and somehow this makes it a sinister transaction, this is based on speculation, on innuendo and certainly not on fact.

It has been suggested that because it is foreign money it is not going to build new rental space or accommodation in this city. Even if it is domestic money in the transaction -- and the majority of it may very well be, I do not know -- but whether foreign or domestic, it is not going to build another rental unit in this city. It is simply a transaction bringing a new owner into the picture. We have to be concerned about the refinancing and whether or not the evidence of it working against tenants is going to have an impact on this particular situation. That is the legitimate concern we have to zero in on, which the minister is monitoring most carefully.

Because of that concern of the minister, I am sure the system will be applied equitably and fairly on this transaction, as it will be on all others, and that the tenants in the Metropolitan Toronto area and throughout the rest of the province will continue to be protected under our existing residential tenancy legislation.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I am less concerned with the categorization of facts than I am with the people who are involved in this issue.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) who said we have to stick to the facts. I agree with him; but the issue is not a lot of facts. The issue is that a large number of people in Metropolitan Toronto are in serious jeopardy of being priced out of an accommodation market.

I want to say to that member, and to all members of the government who are still in the House and who are still sufficiently interested in this issue -- I am pleased to see there are a couple of members from Toronto who are still here -- that we are dealing here with an issue concerning people, not facts.

Secondly, I would like to point out that when the original rent review legislation was evolved, was written, was put together, this type of situation was not considered. I can say that with a little bit of knowledge because I was involved in helping to draft the original legislation. I was involved a couple of years ago when we were going to be rewriting it. The minister will probably be aware of that fact as well.

He will recall that when we drafted the original legislation, and when we looked at the rewriting of it, we tried to bring some balance into the picture, a balance that said we did not want the tenants to be exploited in any way. At the same time, we fully recognized that legitimate landlords, operating in legitimate economic and legal ways, should have their rights protected as well.

If I may draw a reference to my own home riding, one of the things I took into those hearings, and took into the drafting of that legislation, was the recognition of a large number of landlords who had very small buildings of three, four, five or six units. They were even up as high as 14, 15 or 16 units, but these were not major corporate landlords in the normal sense of the word. They were individuals who had a small building, sometimes as a form of income on a regular basis, sometimes as a form of retirement plan, and we recognized that as time went on legitimate costs were going to be incurred by them and we would have to draft the legislation in such a way that those legitimate costs could be passed through.

We talked about a number of them. I would quite honestly say to the minister that I did not have in mind the kinds of manipulative legal and economic exercises that have taken place over the last couple of years, in my riding just as in Metro Toronto, where property is deliberately passed back and forth among a certain small group of people for the sole purpose of allowing each successive landlord to draw income from that property that the original owner would not be able to do.

That may or may not be the situation in this case; we do not know for sure. But we are dealing with such a large volume of apartment units and with such a large number of people that even when that seems to be the situation, we have to look at it most carefully. We cannot allow this simply to pass through the normal rent review procedure. We know what is happening at those regular hearings day after day, week after week.

In my own riding there is a property known as 1100 Courtland Avenue that has been sold three times in the last four years. Either I or representatives from my constituency office have had to be at rent review hearings in every instance By dint of a certain amount of preparation and very hard work on the part of the tenants, we have managed to reduce the rent increases which the new owner asked for, but not substantially. In each case we are still talking of increases of 25 per cent, 30 per cent or even 33 per cent.

In two of those cases the sales were to owners in British Columbia, which is not in our jurisdiction. I am not suggesting that property cannot be sold and bought by people outside Ontario, but a very obvious loophole is being exploited here and this has been going on for the last few years.

I would be surprised if the minister's office is not aware of it. What action they are taking I honestly do not know, but I can say from experience that the present legislation was not intended to deal with that situation. I can also say that the present rent review procedure is not set up to deal with that particular situation. That is why we have to take a look at this particular sale, not in isolation but as an example of something that has been going on and, unless we are being very naive, as an example of something that is bound to continue.

I would suggest to the minister, as my leader suggested earlier in this debate, that if we do not look at this situation now, if we do not convince ourselves that it is a totally appropriate reaction and that everything is on the up-and-up, in the next one to two years we are going to be dealing with many more situations like this and the credibility of the rent review program will suffer.

Mr. Speaker, you will be aware the government has indicated some of the programs that have been put into place to help people requiring rental accommodation in the province. You may also be aware that a survey was done recently at York University on some of the government programs. This study clearly pointed out that the tax dollars put into those programs have not filtered down to benefit the tenants but have been stopped at the corporate level, with developers and large corporate landlords.

This suggests that even when the government steps in and puts more money into that market to try to resolve some of those issues, it is finding the corporate developers and corporate landlords are finding ways to divert the money to their own use. In fact, it is not helping the tenants in the Metropolitan Toronto area or in other parts of the province.

The issue at stake here is not the normal process of rent review. It is something which has been perceived. It has not yet been proved but we have a responsibility to check very carefully our perception of a manipulative and excessive use of rent increases.

5:10 p.m.

The minister will be well aware, as the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), I believe, pointed out earlier, that we have a serious problem with accommodation in the Metro Toronto area anyway. We know there are not enough units available; we know there are not enough people who can even afford the units that are available. It becomes all the more incumbent upon us when we see a situation like this, which is going to affect so many people, to look at it with great care. That is our responsibility.

We cannot fall back on asking: "Are you charging them with this? Are you saying that the rent review process cannot be made to work in this situation?" That is not the issue here at all. The issue is to look at this kind of situation, to recognize that it is symptomatic of other problems that have faced us in the past and to recognize that the rent review legislation was not designed to deal with this type of issue. It was not even seriously considered when we were debating rent review seven years ago. That is what we have to look at.

The members of the government party and the minister himself surely recognize after the years they have spent in this Legislature that no legislation is carved in stone. When it is drafted you do the best you can with the information available at the time. But as the years go on and new information comes to your attention, when you find that there are loopholes in the legislation that were not intended to be there, when you find that people for their own purposes are abusing those loopholes and that at least half the people the legislation was designed to protect are not in fact being protected, then you have to take another look at it and you have to make the changes.

That is doubly important in this particular situation, where we have the Toronto council expressing similar concern.

The minister is well aware that this is not just our concern; it is a concern of many people in this community. For that reason we are bringing this issue forward in an emergency debate today.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I want to make about three points in the course of my comments this afternoon about the bill.

My first objection basically is to the process by which these emergency debates are being dealt with in the House. We had the ridiculous situation with the question of Sudbury: one day it was not an emergency matter and two days later it was an emergency matter after the third occasion. Again, we have the situation where one day it is and one day it is not.

It seems to depend on whether or not the government decides it wants to have the emergency debate. I want to state my objection to that proposition, because it is very destructive of the rules of the House and what they are about, and I think it centres on the office of the Speaker in the way this rule is being interpreted and misinterpreted in the assembly.

Secondly, I want the House to understand very clearly that I do not accept what the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) is saying about the historic origin of the rent review legislation. He is trying now to suggest that in some way or other the policy of the government of Ontario was such as to protect tenants. It was never the intention of the government of Ontario to protect tenants. Their response was dictated by totally political considerations in the aftermath of the near destruction of the government in the 1975 election. That is the only reason we have the legislation.

We have never been able to obtain a single substantive amendment to that legislation from that day to this. It is very clear that the principles embodied in the bill were thrashed out in the assembly but they would never have seen the light of day had there not been a minority government after the election in 1975; and one of the reasons for the minority government was the threat to the government because of what it was doing to the tenants of the province.

I am saying to the minister that in a very real sense this is being duplicated again. From its position of intransigent strength, the government, which treats this assembly as if it is a nonentity in the world of its government, is now in a position where it is offending the tenants of the metropolitan area of Toronto and undoubtedly elsewhere by its intransigent view that nothing can be done to change or improve the rent control legislation of the province.

At some point, either now, at the end of this debate or during the course of his estimates, I hope the minister will explain to me what he meant when he said today that the rent review commission of this province can talk about the legitimacy of the transaction and in some way can determine the legitimacy of the transaction.

We are not talking about legitimacy in the sense of a collusive transaction. I do not have any evidence to believe otherwise. This is not a collusive transaction which is taking place between Greymac and Cadillac Fairview. It is no more collusive than any other big financial transaction is collusive because there are always contacts and discussions. It is a matter of judgement and reflection as to whether that amounts to collusion, and who gets the benefit and who cuts the pie from the benefit which is obtained.

The minister knows those units in the province that predate 1976 and which are subject to rent review were going to be open to this kind of corporate stratagem, if I can use the term which the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) used earlier, and could be used as a method of having the tenants bear the cost of the acquisition and the sale of the property, as my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) clearly said. That is what is happening.

The minister stands there day after day and says to us in a patronizing tone that we must understand that costs have to be passed through. He does not understand that when one passes them through to people who do not have the capacity to pay, ultimately there is something unfair. It is the same confounded principle the government will not understand with respect to Bill 179. One cannot say to people, "You pass through the costs to people who cannot bear the costs which are being passed through."

That is exactly the point which this government does not understand is unfair and improper. The government is elected for the purpose of protecting people. I wish I could get it across to the minister, whom I believe to be humane. He occupies a political territory just north of the riding I represent. The people he represents include those who live in the high-rise apartments on Cosburn Avenue and Gamble Avenue.

What is he saying? Is he saying he is going to forfeit the interests of tenants in those apartments if they happen to be subjected to this kind of sale? Is he saying to them, "Let the tenants there vote for the Liberal Party," if God forbid they should think that was their source of salvation, "or vote for the NDP," which is likely to occur in that area?

The minister is not dumb; he is very smart. He should understand that and should not be required to stand in his place and defend an indefensible policy of the government. A much more fundamental and equally important question is involved in this to which this minister has to address his attention. The questions are still there with a big question mark beside them: Who is Greymac? Who is it fronting for? Who is it acting for? Where is the money coming from? What is the deal involved in it?

The minister knows it is a very real problem, but he knows he does not have the capacity to deal with it. Because he does not have the authority of his cabinet colleagues he says, "Let FIRA deal with it." That is not the problem. The problem is involved with lands and buildings in Ontario.

Historically, it was a tradition of the government of Ontario from the days of the Empire Loyalists in Upper Canada that the ownership of land by corporations was a matter that was a legitimate area for government to monitor. They did monitor it over the years. They made certain they knew which of these strange, intangible persons called corporations owned land and for what purpose, because it was inimical to the growth and development of the province that land should be held by corporations in perpetuity and subsequently that land should be owned by corporations and alienated in such a way that nobody ever knew who the ultimate beneficial owners of land in the province were.

5:20 p.m.

One does not have to be a Socialist or belong to any political party to understand that since the Ontario Law Reform Commission drew attention to this problem in 1976 in its report, the government has done nothing. All it did was to bring forward the repeal of the only act, which was an anachronism within the province, that dealt with the problem of the monitoring by government of the ownership of land in the province. The member for Huron-Middlesex, the former member for York South and a number of other members in the House have talked about this problem with respect to agricultural land.

I am saying to the minister, the problem is identical with respect to the kinds of housing that are developing, and have developed, in Metropolitan Toronto, the immense apartment complexes. It is absolutely essential that this government knows who owns the property and who is responsible for it, as well as the legitimacy of the transaction. It should be a matter of public policy to prohibit the sale to any organization of land and buildings in Ontario which are used for tenant accommodation, unless it is fully disclosed on the record who owns the corporation that is going to purchase the land, who are the beneficial owners --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): The member's time has expired.

Mr. Renwick: -- of that interest, and what is the responsibility of this government with respect to protecting tenants against that kind of foreign ownership. That may appear to be a problem the minister can duck, but I am saying that until he comes to grips with another aspect of this question, the foreign ownership of land in Ontario, he will have failed in his ministry as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak on the motion for a number of reasons. I did have a question, as some members will recall, that was to be addressed to the minister, and it will be integrated in some of the comments I have to make today.

What irks and bothers me is the unfortunate exploitation of a concern that is, in my opinion, genuine on both sides of this House and shared by many, whatever our partisan politics. What is unfortunate is the political game-playing that is being done with people and I will give an example of that.

Mr. Renwick: Stop it.

Mr. Shymko: The member tells me to stop it, but I will give him an example where I was stopped at a public meeting held in my riding by New Democratic Party Alderman White. It was a meeting of tenants in my riding at Western Technical-Commercial, and I was prevented from addressing my constituents because I was not "a tenant in a Cadillac apartment."

That is the type of posturing and political game-playing that I cannot accept, because my concerns are just as genuine as anybody else's concerns and no one has any monopoly of compassion, any monopoly of concern. It is unfortunate that we witness unscrupulous exploitation, scare tactics, the spreading of panic among genuine, innocent people who still are not aware of what will be happening because of circumstances.

I am not in any way trying to indicate that the honourable member's motion is part of that political game-playing. We see a lot of it in this House, but that is the so-called freedom of speech that an NDP alderman granted to me in my constituency. That is the way he runs public meetings, by preventing an elected member from sharing similar concerns. Thank God I can talk with some NDP members in this House, directly addressing them here, or speaking to them and with them in the corridors of power in this prestigious and great facility where we can address the issues equally and squarely.

There are genuine fears. I share them more than anybody else because there are close to 3,000 such units in my constituency. We are talking of almost 6,000 constituents who would be affected in case of any proven evidence that they will be faced with huge increases. I am just as concerned as anyone else in this House.

I would like to point out that without question the rental housing situation is of major concern to this government. I would like to state that before even one question was raised by the opposition, by either party, in late September the question was raised by the minister and by yours truly in full caucus. This matter was on the agenda of our Metro caucus.

I am not giving the honourable members details, but I am trying to point out that the matter was discussed before anyone even got up on the opposition side to publicly raise and posture about their compassion and concern.

I would like to congratulate the minister at this time. He indicated today that he is calling the representatives of Greymac and Cadillac Fairview to sit down with him and to clarify what is happening; to provide him with the information that he certainly seeks. I congratulate the minister for the audacity of taking that pen or typewriter and corresponding with the Foreign Investment Review Agency and demanding that they investigate. I have not heard one of the members --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for High Park-Swansea has the floor.

Mr. Shymko: When the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) talks about the minister being humane, there is no one who has a monopoly on being humane. This minister is just as humane on this issue as anybody else, perhaps more so than others.

For the record, it was this government which in 1975 introduced rent control. It was this government that passed the legislation intended to be just and fair to both tenants and landlords and which was refined in 1977. I believe the minister is ready, as he indicated, to look at some reviews, to look at some options, to look at some reasonable changes, if necessary. He is willing to do it. He has the compassion. He has the desire and he has the concern.

Let us be realistic. Because of increasing property values and current high interest rates, as the minister and others pointed out, it is most likely that many owners and landlords will be facing financial loss. I refer to the working-class landlord who worked all his life to have the little duplex, triplex or fourplex. He is faced with problems. He needs protection. If one talks to the workers in my constituency, he has, on the opposite side, equal concerns to those of our tenants who are hit with high interest rates, with inflation. He is just as afraid and has the problem of facing rent increases.

5:30 p.m.

I would like to ask the minister, following his meeting with Greymac and Cadillac Fairview and perhaps after receiving a response from FIRA, to share with this House the information he receives, to crack that "wall of silence" as the press described it, the climate of fear and uncertainty that surrounds the Greymac deal and which, in my opinion, is at the very root of that exploitative game that is being played.

I do not want to put any words in the minister's mouth, but I am confident any pertinent information will be shared with this House.

On October 13, the City of Toronto Planning Board on a motion by one of its members, Derwyn Shea, passed the following unanimous resolution: "In the light of recent press reports concerning the possible sale of some or all of Cadillac Fairview's rental units to another firm, be it resolved that the commissioner of planning report on the potential economic implications of such a transfer of ownership and the possible implications vis-à-vis rent control and economic stability in the city rental market." That motion shows the concern that is there. The commissioner is asked to look into the economic implications of this transfer of ownership, economic stability in the rental market and the whole question of rent control.

I share this concern and urge the minister, as chairman of the cabinet committee on administered prices and the minister responsible for rent control, who also shares these concerns, to look at possible regulatory options and guidelines that may allow some discretionary decisions on his part, or perhaps that of the Residential Tenancy Commission, for future application. I am not talking about the retroactive aspects, but of preventing Greymac, or for that matter any landlord, from passing in the future what I would consider unrealistic rent increases, at levels that make a mockery of rent control and ridicule this government's newly announced inflation restraint program --

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

Mr. Shymko: -- aimed at monitoring and restraining price increases in the private sector, including rent.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I think we are all aware that one of the most serious pressures that have resulted in increases in rent has been the additional refinancing costs when properties have changed hands. The rent review officers have allowed these pass-throughs and in many instances, along with other more legitimate increases in costs, they have resulted in upward changes in the rents of 16 per cent to 20 per cent to sometimes over 30 per cent.

The motion that is before the House refers to the rental situation across the province as well as that directly connected with the acquisition of the large number of rental units owned by Cadillac Fairview.

If one were to journey to the city of Brantford one could buy a home on a separate lot with a gas furnace and an attached garage, all in good shape, for just about $30,000. That does not mean the upward pressure on rents, particularly for senior citizens, has not become appalling.

The information that has come to me has always been on the occasion when properties have been sold to new owners and where very large borrowings have been required at high interest rates, and the rent review officers, with the instructions they have been provided under our statute and our regulations, have been forced to allow those costs to be passed through.

We have to come to grips with that. The minister -- I agree with the previous speaker -- is humane, understanding and smart and therefore probably is as well qualified as anybody on that side to carry out the changes that are obviously necessary. When we see ads in the city of Toronto for people setting up a business to advise landlords on how to get larger increases approved by the rent review officers, surely it is time to look at our own responsibilities to see that justice is done, I suppose, as well as seen to be done, by the tenants in this city and elsewhere.

It has been said by many people that Cadillac Fairview has been an exemplary landlord. As far as I know, they have not gone to rent review on any of their many thousands of units, and as far as I am concerned they have had a reputation for keeping units of very high quality. I think that ought to be said. It may be that they are just so sick of seeing some of their competition in the apartment renting business move ahead of them so dramatically in the area of profitability that they have decided that rather than go into the rent review scam -- and that is just about what it has developed into in recent months -- they would prefer to sell out and let somebody else do what might be seen by them as the dirty work.

It seems to me this is the time for us in this House, with the leadership of the minister and the government, to do something that will at least put the situation on ice for a time. This is pretty dramatic, but I believe the minister should announce that these rentals are going to be included, at least for the coming year, in the six per cent guidelines that have been a part of federal and now of provincial policy with regard to our employees and our provincial emanations.

There is no doubt that some landlords will be quite seriously hurt in this connection, and under the present bill that is being debated in the committee there is recourse to a board for some instances where the facts would permit some leeway in this connection. But a year's freeze on rent increases at six per cent should be considered until some other alternative can be brought to bear that is going to work for the protection of the tenants and, as far as possible, the protection of the landlords.

It is very difficult to have it both ways; I know this is so. But under these circumstances the pass-throughs of costs resulting in an average rent increase of 16 per cent, and in many instances over 25 per cent I am told, really cannot be allowed to continue, I can recount more than one specific instance of people who have called me -- and in each case these are senior citizens living in very good rental premises in the city of Brantford and its environs -- who have been faced in the last three years with substantial increases in rent approved by the rent review procedure.

The most recent instance contained an increase of over 30 per cent. These people feel -- and I feel they are justified in this -- that they are being treated in an unfair way, particularly in a jurisdiction that has a rent review procedure that has in years past commanded a good deal of respect and confidence in the community. It worked reasonably well for a number of years, but now that these pass-through costs are being added to the rents on the basis of refinancing costs, I believe we have to take an additional look at it.

I am not prepared to make any comment on what has been referred to as the allegations of collusive dealings in this connection. I know nothing about that. It seems to me, however, that since Cadillac Fairview rentals must have lagged behind similar rentals in other facilities, and since they are prepared to sell on the basis of the new owners getting the rent increases that might be available under the procedures the rent review officers are currently using, it would be a good buy for Greymac Corp. The price would be comparatively reduced because of the low rents, and they can then change it under our present inadequate regulations and statutes.

5:40 p.m.

I was interested in today's Toronto Star business section where there is an interesting story about the sale by the darling of the conservative Conservatives, Peter Pocklington, of 2,584 Toronto apartment units he owns through his corporation called Patrician Land Corp. He is selling these to an American concern called the National Life Tennessee Corp.

It appears this is an instance where somebody who is going into the political sphere does not want to have to deal with rental review, and all the aspects he might not find attractive there, and is selling this out to some American corporation which probably will have no compunction about getting all the rent increases the traffic will bear, and then even more.

It is interesting to note that former United States President Gerald Ford was the finder for Pocklington, who is evidently looking for savings and loan companies to take over in the United States. He is selling his apartments for the ownership of an American savings and loan corporation, which he understands is going to be deregulated early in 1983 as the next step in Reaganomics.

This is happening more and more rapidly. I feel sure the minister and his colleagues will have to take some action without delay. The matter is becoming one of the greatest concerns, politically and otherwise.

I do not want to deal with the political issues other than to say to my friend who spoke first for the New Democratic Party, the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), that the whole concept of rent review was really mothered by that great Liberal Margaret Campbell who, as one of the strongest voices for tenants in Metropolitan Toronto, brought forward a fully worked-out program that was the basis of our presentation to the electorate in 1975.

The reason we were less successful than many of us had hoped was on no account because of the inadequacies of that program. It was really the bellwether, the leading program that brought the NDP belatedly and, finally, the Tories kicking and screaming to the whole concept of rent review. As a matter of fact, I am extremely proud of having been the leader of the Liberal Party in those days when we provided this leadership on an issue that everyone could recognize, then and now, as truly Liberal.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we are having this debate. The Liberals first asked for it two days ago and then in the standing committee on general government they flip-flopped and said we should have it next week or maybe the week after because it did not appear to be an emergency. Today they have gone back and said it appears to be an emergency.

I am glad the Speaker has recognized that it is an emergency, because we do have a very serious situation. In the committee yesterday, one Conservative speaker said we could not set aside this proposal or limit it in any way, because we were dealing with two large and important corporations and their property rights, and it would have tremendous repercussions if their property rights were interfered with.

There are also the rights of 11,000 tenants who face the possibility of sharp increases in their rents. Surely they also have a right to reasonable rents and should not be expected to finance takeovers and purchases among large corporations. In particular, they should not have to finance the ventures of foreign corporations in this country if those ventures are going to result in serious hardship for 11,000 tenants.

The fact the Conservatives have refused to raise a finger in this situation indicates their acceptance of the absolute rule of the bottom line and the absolute rights of soulless corporations to buy and sell their property as they like.

This is also reflected in the way the rent review legislation is being administered today. We know that refinancing costs are being passed through to tenants, and we know there are loopholes which allow that in the legislation. We have been drawing those loopholes to the attention of the government for several years. My colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) as recently as September of this year brought in a private bill to plug those loopholes. Have we had any action from the government? No.

The government is certainly very much aware of those loopholes, as it has seen the rising awards that are coming from the rent review board. In my own riding last year, one owner asked for a 100 per cent increase in rents. When it came to the rent review board, by dint of tenants appearing and putting their arguments very forcibly, the rent review board cut that 100 per cent increase to 50 per cent. But how many of us can absorb a 50 per cent increase in our shelter costs in one year? Those tenants had to either look for cheaper accommodation or severely cut their standard of living. Those same tenants in the next year, this year with us now, faced another 35 per cent increase. Practically all this increase was for refinancing costs, plus certain repairs that were necessary, because the building actually had been sold far beyond its value and they had to put in repairs as well.

This kind of increase is simply not acceptable in our society. We have to remember that many of these 11,000 people are long-term tenants in the apartments. They have made their lives in the neighbourhoods in which they live. They have maintained their apartments, often at their own expense, to keep them as good living accommodation. Many of them are of modest income, many of them are pensioners who have no surplus to absorb very large increases, and many of them are in the public sector and will be facing a wage curtailment, a wage increase of not more than five per cent, in the coming year. How can they be expected to absorb huge increases in their rental costs?

I am surprised that the Liberals have suddenly discovered that these 11,000 tenants have votes and that they should be championing their cause. The Liberals in 1977 permitted rent review to be removed from a great many tenants of public housing; so they have nothing to prevent them from having increases over six per cent in any one year, and many of them are facing increases of more than six per cent, including tenants of senior citizens' apartments. How anybody on a senior citizen pension, getting the small increase that comes through the old age security, can be expected to absorb anything more than six per cent is certainly something to be wondered at. But the government and the Liberals together voted during minority government to take all those people out from under rent review.

In my riding, they also took out the residents of Main Square, which has about 1,400 apartments on a sort of limited-dividend arrangement. It is a very special arrangement, and they have no protection under rent review either.

The anomalies have been growing as a result of the votes of the two other parties, but now they have discovered there are 11,000 tenants out there who need protection and so they are suggesting that perhaps the government should act. In fact, Mr. Eggleton was so carried away that he voted for subsidizing private sector rents in the executive committee yesterday.

5:50 p.m.

What is needed is an immediate freeze on the present situation. There is still time. The deal will not be consummated until November 16. Then there will be an examination of the effects on those tenants and what sort of changes we need in the rent review legislation to prevent the tremendous pass-through of refinancing costs so no tenant faces increases that will put him or her out of his or her house. This is what will happen to a great many of these people. They will have to go to substandard accommodation or double up.

This city already has a very tight rental situation. We know that the vacancy rate is well under one per cent. This will simply add to the pressure. It will also add to the pressure on landlords to raise rents by any loopholes they can find in the present legislation.

We know that the New Democratic Party was largely responsible for getting this legislation by making it an election issue in 1975, but it has been eroded over the years and it needs a great deal of tightening up. This is an opportunity for us to freeze this transaction and to tighten up the legislation.

In particular, when it is a case of a foreign corporation involved in the transaction, it is a time for us to look at the role of the Foreign Investment Review Agency in protecting not only the Canadian economy, which was one of its original mandates, but also Canadians from the effect of foreign investment.

This is a case where both of the other parties have been trying to weaken FIRA. They have been saying that it is preventing foreign investment. If we are going to get foreign investment at the expense of pauperizing 11,000 tenants, then I do not think we want that kind of foreign investment. I think we need to tighten FIRA. Its record in the case of real estate transactions is that it has disallowed one and passed all the others. I do not think that either of the other parties can continue to ask for the weakening of FIRA and, at the same time, say they are protecting these tenants.

This is an opportunity for the government to review the whole situation and see what can be done immediately to stop this particular transaction and to see that the rights of the tenants are protected. This is also an opportunity to bring in a revision of the rent review legislation to prevent this sort of situation arising.

The Acting Speaker: In calling on the member for St. George to speak, I draw her attention to the clock and remind her that there are approximately seven minutes remaining in the debate.

Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I will confine my remarks to just a couple of points, in view of the hour.

When legislation, programs and structures of the sort we are dealing with, such as rent review and the Residential Tenancy Commission, have been in operation for some time, I consider it is very appropriate that some of the fundamental premises be re-examined on occasion to ascertain whether the effectiveness that was sought at the outset continues to be the case in the light of changing circumstances.

I will direct my remarks particularly to the grounds or criteria on which decisions are made through the implementation of the rent review program, rather than speaking to the question of where changes might be appropriate as between guidelines, legislation or elsewhere.

I particularly want to suggest, recommend or urge that the minister and the commission give consideration to the question that may arise on the sale or refinancing of buildings. I am speaking in a rather more general way than about the particulars of the Greymac proposed purchase of the Cadillac Fairview portfolio in that it seems to me that the questions that have arisen with that particular case are applicable in many others as well, although perhaps they are not as large.

I note, for example, that the commission not very long ago dealt with the issue of an arm's-length transaction or lack thereof in a notable and extraordinary sale that was being proposed on Davisville in the city of Toronto, and it held that the transactions are required to be at arm's length. The decision of the commission was very interesting, though, and it raises the question and the opportunity to extend some of the considerations of the commission at that time.

For example, it does not take a doctorate in land economics to know that if the vendor will take back a mortgage, notably at a point or two or three below what is available in the private money markets in an arm's-length transaction, the price of the land and the building can be inflated. It does not take a doctorate in land economics to know that when this happens, there is an ongoing and continuing interest by the now former owner in that particular piece of property.

As well, a fair guarantee of continued revenue from that building by virtue of a pay-down on a mortgage that is taken back is a revenue that perhaps would not be available to that owner should the owner simply have sought a rent increase through a normal rent review application. It seems to me that considerable attention should be given to the question of any take-back mortgages by vendors and that a question should be posed -- and I pose it -- as to whether that becomes, within the spirit of the legislation, truly an arm's-length transaction with respect to allowable cost pass-through.

I also suggest that considerable attention should be given to a situation -- I believe I heard the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) correctly; I may not have, but I interpreted some of his remarks as suggesting it -- in which owners of one building and owners of another are in effect making trades betwixt and between. When that happens in a given community, within a given jurisdiction of an office of the Residential Tenancy Commission, that kind of experience is perhaps traceable. It is far more difficult if it involves large companies and if it is widespread, occurring in different communities.

But it seems to me that the pattern of dealings between companies or landlords or property owners, which may place in doubt the question of whether this is genuinely an arm's-length transaction, ought as well to be considered when the allowable amount on any pass-through on financing is considered in respect of costs that are allowed to go through.

It seems to me as well that consideration should be given, quite apart from the rather extraordinary challenge in the courts by the proposed or perhaps current owners of Graydon Hall, I think it is, to the matter of the requirement for equity. I think it is perhaps timely to review the current guideline of a 15 per cent requirement of equity as it is allowable on the cost pass-through, which is normally phrased as 85 per cent being allowed in the pass-through. I note that this guideline established at 85 and 15 flowed primarily from approximately 30 years of experience and practice in the development community, where that was the average and the general practice.

We are now seeing an extraordinary and, I might suggest, thoroughly appalling condition where there are no equity circumstances in a purchase, where they are entirely separately financed situations. When one puts that together with the question of whether there are vendor take-backs or of the degree to which a transaction was genuinely at arm's length, it raises a severe question in my mind.

I suggest that the matter of equity requirement be given very serious consideration and review. From my perspective I urge that, particularly in these economic climes, the requirement for equity should not be reduced from 15 per cent but indeed should be substantially increased as regards the allowable pass-through.

Finally and ever so briefly, to the extent that there is a genuine arm's-length transaction and to the extent that there is an increase in cost that would be viewed by all reasonable people examining an application before them that would involve a pass-through or an amendment to the rent, I urge that very serious consideration be given to reconsidering the three-year requirement with a view to increasing very substantially the amortization period through which any such cost could reasonably be passed through to the tenants.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Before we break for supper, I would like to indicate the business for the remainder of this week and next.

Mr. Conway: Taking us all to the Albany Club?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Please ignore the interjections and continue with your statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The honourable member could join me. I am sure he had an invitation. Tonight is the consular ball, and he would be most welcome there, I am sure.

The business for tonight is as on the Order Paper: resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing committee on procedural affairs, and then, if time permits, recommendations contained in the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

Tomorrow, Friday, October 29, we will begin the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet. These estimates will continue in committee of supply in the House on Monday afternoon, November 1.

On Tuesday, November 2, we will consider legislation in the following order: third reading of Bills 91, 93, 163, 164, 171 and 172; second reading of Bills 109 and 150; committee of the whole on Bills 109, 149 and 150; and second reading and committee of the whole, if required, on Bills 145, 146, 131, 132, 176 and 177.

On Wednesday, November 3, the usual three committees may sit in the morning: administration of justice, general government and resources development.

On Thursday, November 4, in the afternoon, we will consider private members' ballot items still remaining in the names of Mr. McNeil and Mr. Di Santo. On Thursday evening we will begin the debate on the motion for the adoption of the recommendations in the ninth report of the select committee on the Ombudsman.

On Friday, November 5, in committee of supply, we will consider the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

I might also indicate to the House that it is our intention to begin sittings on Monday evenings on November 15.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to table the answers to questions 235, 500, 501, 506, 507, 508 and 539 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, October 29]. A little reading for suppertime.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.

28 octobre 1982