Journal des débats 1986-déc-03 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Pierce: Today I would like to address the matter of native fishing agreements currently being negotiated by the province, the federal government and the native communities. I believe this government is deliberately withholding information from the Progressive Conservative northern caucus on these very important negotiations.

As chairman of the Progressive Conservative northern caucus, I have requested and been denied a meeting between the special negotiator for native issues, Al Stewart, and the northern caucus. The PC northern caucus represents the majority of the residents who will be directly affected as a result of the fishing negotiations; yet this government has seen fit to prohibit Mr. Stewart from meeting with our northern members.

The Liberal government continues to tell the people of Ontario that it is an open government, willing to provide answers to all the questions asked of it. When asked to provide answers on the important issue of native fishing agreements, how can this government justify secret meetings and its unwillingness to provide relevant information?

As chairman of the Progressive Conservative northern caucus, I ask this government to allow the special negotiator for native issues to meet with our northern members to discuss the native fishing agreements.

PEARSON PEACE MEDAL

Mr. McClellan: I want to bring to the attention of the members of the House an important honour that was recently given to one of my constituents. I am speaking of Meyer Brownstone, who is the 1986 recipient of the Pearson Peace Medal, which is given each year by the United Nations Association in Canada.

This year's award was presented to Meyer Brownstone by Governor General Sauvé on October 23. As members may know, the Pearson Peace Medal is named after Lester Pearson, and the award recognizes a Canadian who has contributed to the causes supported by the late Prime Minister, including aid to developing nations, mediation to settle armed conflicts and help for refugees.

Meyer Brownstone is an old friend of mine and of many other members of this House. He teaches political science at the University of Toronto and is director of the Centre for Urban and Community Studies at the U of T, but for many years his real avocation has been to give leadership as the chairman of Oxfam Canada.

We are pleased and delighted that his life commitment to the causes of peace and justice has been recognized and honoured.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. McLean: The total lack of control of this government by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has changed Ontario from a province of opportunity to a state of chaos. Through this lack of control with regard to the opening of Sunday store hours, he has created a situation well within the realm of chaotic.

In Orillia, a major chain merchandiser is opening this Sunday. A staff member is being told that the store will be open and that she will be required to be on duty. If this person refuses, she could be fired. This staff member called the Ontario Labour Relations Board and was told that she would indeed risk dismissal if she refused to work. The person then called the Orillia city police and was told it was illegal to open the store on Sunday and that the store and its employees would be subject to a fine for violation of the Sunday store hours act or the Lord's Day Act.

This constituent of mine needs this job. The city needs her contribution to the economy. Her family needs her at home on this day when they can all be together.

Through his fence-sitting efforts, the Premier is playing games with people's family life. This person and her family cannot afford to live without a paycheque. They cannot afford to pay a fine, which I understand can run as high as $10,000. One does not fine a drunk driver and tell him to pay and drive on. The Premier, in effect, is forcing people such as this person in Orillia to work against their will, their better judgement and against the law.

I ask the Premier, is slavery coming back with the Liberal government?

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Wildman: Recently, in answer to our questions regarding the failure of this government to respond to the economic crisis in northern Ontario, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) asked me why I never talk about the small community of Searchmont in my riding. He is proud of the fact that this government has responded to our requests for assistance to ensure that Searchmont Valley Resort continues to operate and expand to stimulate tourism in the Sault Ste. Marie area.

Today I would like to say a few words about the economy of Searchmont. Obviously, the Premier is unaware that the main industry at Searchmont, the lumber and veneer mill, has laid off most of its 150 or so employees. The mill is owned by G. W. Martin Lumber Ltd., which purchased it about a year and a half ago from Weldwood of Canada. At that time, I suspected that G. W. Martin wanted the timber limits attached to that mill to feed another mill it owns in Sault Ste. Marie, and I prevailed upon the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio) to ensure that the company would operate the Searchmont mill before he approved the transfer of the limits.

The company claims that the current shutdown is a short-term response to the American countervail, but there is evidence that the layoff may be extended beyond the early January startup. G. W. Martin is transferring much of the timber that is being cut in the Searchmont area to its Sault operation.

G. W. Martin never really wanted the mill at Searchmont; it wanted the timber. If the Premier had any real commitment to the economy of Searchmont, he would prevail upon his colleague to ensure that the timber cut in the Searchmont area is used for the operation of that mill and is not transferred to another G. W. Martin operation.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Brandt: I stand to speak on a matter of urgency and great importance for all communities served by volunteer firefighters. I have been informed by Robert Timms, the fire chief for Sarnia township, and by Bruce Japp from the Lambton-Kent Fire Fighters Association, that the Ontario Fire College will not be offering weekend courses in 1987 to train volunteer firefighters.

My staff contacted the Ontario Fire College today and was told that the weekend courses will be suspended because of shortage of staff and budgetary restraints. This is in spite of the fact that more than 300 applications have already been received from volunteer firefighters for weekend courses and in spite of the fact that highly successful weekend courses were run in 1985 and 1986.

Volunteer firefighters are among the most dedicated groups in our province. They freely donate their time to the municipalities they represent. At times, they even risk their lives for their friends and neighbours. To perform their duties, they need the professional training offered by the college. However, as volunteers, most of these individuals hold regular weekday jobs. If these individuals can give so much of their time and energy, the very least the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) can do is to provide the necessary funds to allow for weekend sessions to be conducted at the Ontario Fire College.

On behalf of my party, I call upon him to correct the situation as soon as possible.

RECOGNITION OF JOURNALIST

Mr. Philip: Last night the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists National Radio Awards were presented. Considering the very high standards of Canadian broadcasting, there was some very tough competition for those awards.

I know all members of this House were pleased to hear that one of our own press gallery members, Gerry McAuliffe, won the best news reporter/investigative journalist award for his series on the problems of Ontario's courthouses. This series of news reports provoked a full inquiry by the Provincial Auditor of Ontario, whose study will be tabled before the standing committee on public accounts in January.

Gerry McAuliffe has brought a new style of investigative, hard-hitting reporting to radio news. His investigative approach has set standards for the profession. On accepting his award last night, he indicated he was thankful the event was receiving only radio coverage since he was so excited he feared he might wet his pants. I know many cabinet ministers faced with Gerry McAuliffe's tough questions must feel exactly the same way.

We in the New Democratic Party feel so confident Mr. McAuliffe will be a strong contender for next year's award that we have chipped in and purchased this pair of rubber underwear for him to wear just in case the ACTRA awards are televised. No doubt Mr. McAuliffe will want to wear them to the press gallery Christmas party in a couple of weeks to relieve the anxieties among our caucus that we may have purchased the wrong size.

On a serious note, Gerry McAuliffe is a top professional reporter with a lot of energy and a lot of courage. I am sure all members wish him many years of reporting the events in the Ontario Legislature.

SPEAKING CONTEST WINNER

Hon. Mr. Riddell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Prior to statements by the ministry and responses, I believe I have a most interesting and legitimate point of order. I would like to draw to the attention of Mr. Speaker and the House a young lady in the members' gallery by the name of Anne Howden, who is acting as Minister of Agriculture and Food for the day and who is accompanying me on my round of duties. Anne Howden is the winner of a province-wide speaking contest sponsored by my ministry and by the Royal Winter Fair. I know everybody would like to extend her a warm welcome.

Mr. Brandt: The minister may want to clarify this, but I understand that second prize is two days with the minister.

13:43

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Bradley: On July 3, 1986, I introduced the Environmental Enforcement Statute Law Amendment Act. Bill 112 broadens and dramatically increases the penalty provisions of the Environment Protection Act, the Ontario Water Resources Act and the Pesticides Act. It is designed to ensure that judges can mete out appropriate consequences to perpetrators of serious environmental offences.

With Bill 112, our government wanted to make it cheaper to comply with our environmental laws than to break them. Today I am pleased to advise the House that I shall be introducing amendments which will make this message even stronger and clearer. These amendments will raise the maximum fines to as high as $250,000 a day for the most serious offences. They will impose on the officers and directors of corporations an unequivocal duty to prevent pollution offences. They will give the Ministry of the Environment the authority to require a deposit of financial security as a condition of approval. They will remove crown immunity from the Ontario Water Resources Act.

I have listened carefully to submissions from the public on Bill 112 and am persuaded that even higher fines are needed to discourage polluters and to indicate to the courts how serious the people of Ontario and this government are about protecting the environment.

Not all pollution offences cause dramatic fish kills or ruin a drinking water supply for years to come. More often, environmental degradation is like suffering death by a thousand cuts. The only way to prevent that end is by taking each cut seriously and deterring it from recurring.

Accordingly, we intend to amend Bill 112 to raise the fines for corporations convicted of polluting or violating emergency stop orders from a current second-offence level of $10,000 to $100,000 and the fines for the most serious offences involving liquid industrial waste and hazardous waste from a current $50,000 to $250,000. For most other offences, the fines for corporations will be raised from $5,000 to $25,000 for a first offence and from $10,000 to $50,000 for subsequent offences.

Last July we clarified that corporations are responsible for the conduct of their employees and agents. We wanted to give corporations a strong incentive to set up effective pollution prevention systems. Today I am adding another strong incentive for corporations to take care with the environment. I shall introduce an amendment to state unequivocally that each director and officer of every corporation that engages in an activity that may result in a discharge of a contaminant contrary to our legislation has a duty to take all reasonable care to ensure that the corporation implements the appropriate pollution control systems to prevent such an unlawful pollution incident.

The failure of officers and directors to take all reasonable steps to prevent pollution offences will in itself be a violation of the law. This is a key provision long advocated by environmentally concerned citizens, and I am pleased our government is adding it to Ontario's laws.

Many corporations have already voluntarily accepted this responsibility to seek out and eliminate the causes of pollution before they result in environmental damage. Whether they call such procedures "environmental risk assessments," "hazard and operability studies" or "environmental audits," many concerned corporate citizens are now making pollution prevention an important part of their day-to-day operations. Now their competitors must do the same, or their officers and directors risk prosecution.

I shall be introducing an amendment to provide the Ministry of the Environment with the authority to require financial assurance for projects and abatement programs approved or ordered by the ministry. For a number of years, particularly in the waste management area, the Ministry of the Environment has required that applicants provide financial security, such as bonds or letters of credit, as a condition of approval. This is to ensure that those parts of the project which are essential to protect the environment are built and that the funds are available to remedy any adverse environmental consequences of the project.

Today I propose to add a new part to the Environmental Protection Act to confirm this practice and to broaden its scope and applicability. We will now be able to require financial assurance as part of virtually any control order or approval issued under the Environmental Protection Act or the Ontario Water Resources Act.

This requirement will still be subject to the appeals procedure before orders and approvals are made final. In addition, the person who provides the financial assurance will have the right to an appeal before the security is forfeited. The financial assurance will be returned to the company when all requirements of its orders or approvals have been met.

These new powers will be particularly useful when a company has failed in the past to carry out its promises or has not met its deadlines for pollution control and abatement programs.

I believe these amendments and previously announced revisions of Bill 112 will provide a powerful incentive to make protection of the environment an integral part of all aspects of the corporate decision-making process.

Mr. Harris: I find it passing strange that after 16 months, the Minister of the Environment is once again making a big statement, probably with a big press release and probably with another package heading out, about how he is going to get tough on polluters.

It is typical of this government. We had Bill 11 on condominium conversions, with about 85 press announcements and 85 reannouncements. Finally, more amendments were brought into the bill than there had been sections in the total bill when it was first introduced.

We had Bill 105 on pay equity. There were lots of press releases announcing it was going to come, it would be coming soon and then, "Here it is." Six months later, they are not very proud of it; then there is a month of boycotting the committee process, and a new bill, Bill 158, is brought in, to take effect some time in 1990.

Now amendments have been brought in to a bill that was originally introduced on July 3. Quite frankly, I do not know why it took until July 3 to introduce it originally. Perhaps that was the most convenient date before the House adjourned, so the minister could get the press release out and have it sit out there and create the impression and the illusion this government has been so good at -- and others have helped to perpetrate the myth -- that it is actually doing something.

Now, close to two weeks before we are going to adjourn for Christmas, we have tabling of some amendments. Why was this bill not dealt with last spring? Why was it not dealt with in the summer? Why was it not dealt with the first day back? The only thing that has happened is that Tom McMillan, the Conservative minister in Ottawa, came out with penalties that are far in excess of and far more meaningful than what this government has proposed. Everything sat on hold for a time.

Now we have another press release and another statement about these amendments. I find it passing strange that we have press releases and announcements and announcements and announcements. When are we going to get on with the legislation?

At the same time as there are all these announcements, nothing seems to proceed with respect to the beaches cleanup; there is a lack of funding. There are problems with air regulations and drinking water quality. Nothing is happening with respect to recycling. Basic transfers to municipalities to allow them actually to do something to improve the environment are down, and not in inflationary terms but in real dollar terms. The minister is well aware of some of them in my riding; and they are in every riding across this province. We welcome the statement once again.

Mr. Fontaine: A good statement.

Mr. Harris: Sure. It would have been a good statement 16 months ago. It is something that should have been dealt with a long time ago. We are getting a little sick and tired of press release after press release and announcement after announcement, with no action on the environment by this ministry and this government.

Mrs. Grier: In response to the statement today by the Minister of the Environment, at the outset I have to say I am a little hurt that at the end of the statement he did not give a long list of the authors of this conversion on the road to stiffer fines and penalties. Certainly, the Minister of the Environment was not one of the original authors.

When I look back at the statement we all got on July 3, the claims to a new era of environmental legislation sound very similar to the claims we heard again today. He said then, "I believe the new enforcement structure introduced today will provide appropriate deterrence for offences against the environment in Ontario." I am very glad to say that somehow, between July 3 and December 3, those of us who said in July that it was a paper tiger have to some extent been listened to.

Before we get actually to implement the bill, assuming that the calling of it in Orders and Notices is intended to happen quickly, I hope there may even be a third version. I hope that third version will include some minimum fines. I also hope it will include the same level of penalty, $500,000, that the federal Minister of the Environment, Tom McMillan, is intending to impose. I know I would have the full support of my friends on the right for that level of deterrence. Therefore, the minister can be assured of our support.

I regret it has taken the minister five months to persuade the other members of cabinet that the legislation as he first introduced it was not strong enough. I somewhat regret it is not more explicit that pollution offences are a crime and need to be treated as a crime in this province, but it is a vast improvement over the original legislation. I look forward to a constructive debate as to how it can be made even better and how it can be implemented to make sure we do not have any more pollution in this province.

INTERNATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS DISCOVERY CENTRE

Hon. Ms. Munro: I rise today with pride to share with my colleagues in the House news of a great step forward for Canada's cultural and telecommunications industries.

This evening in Brantford, my federal colleague Flora MacDonald and I will announce the first commitments under the Canada-Ontario cultural development agreement. These commitments will entail $500,000 from each of our respective governments for phase 1 of the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford.

The International Telecommunications Discovery Centre is the spiritual heir to one of Brantford's most famous native sons, Alexander Graham Bell. It was in Brantford that the modern communications era started with the first long-distance telephone call to Paris, Ontario.

Brantford will again be the site of a new era when the centre opens for business. Comprising the Teleheritage Museum, Telecom 2020 Discovery Place and the Intelcom Canada Institute, the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre is a tribute to the past, an explanation of the present and a guide to the future.

Canada and Ontario signed a cultural development agreement for the first time in September. The centre was flagged as a priority at that time: I am proud that we have moved so swiftly to demonstrate our commitment to the project. One reason we could move so quickly with this project is the tremendous amount of co-operation we have enjoyed. The federal government, this government, the city of Brantford and the private sector have all contributed as partners to making this particular dream a reality.

The International Telecommunications Discovery Centre will be a national focal point in Canada and North America for culture, science, technology, history, education and tourism. The centre clearly shows us the link between technology and culture. It will be a source of great pride to us all. I am delighted that the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture is a supporter of and participant in this project.

Mr. Gillies: I welcome the announcement of the Minister of Citizenship and Culture reconfirming the commitment the province made to the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford, which I announced on behalf of the previous government in the spring of 1985. Now with the achievement of the federal-provincial agreement, and despite the concerns voiced earlier by the Premier (Mr. Peterson), it is great to see the new government embracing this very worthwhile project.

I offer my thanks to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) for his assistance in reconfirming this, to the Honourable Flora MacDonald of the government of Canada, to our own Minister of Citizenship and Culture and to the mayor and people of the great city of Brantford. We all worked together, and it is going to be great. We look forward to the opening.

Mr. Allen: I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture with regard to the establishment in the neighbouring community of Brantford of the International Communications Discovery Centre and the component parts, the Teleheritage Museum, Telecom 2020 Discovery and the Intelcom Canada Institute.

In the first instance, the recognition of telecommunications in our time rests upon a very central fact of Canadian life, which was recognized as a physical necessity by Alexander Graham Bell, namely, the necessity of communications for all our communities to link up across this vast continent in a single unified national community; as well as on the outstanding work of Harold Innis at the University of Toronto, who first made us recognize, as Canadians, how much our culture rests upon the communication system upon which we live day by day in this country and out of which our history has grown. Marshall McLuhan also did further work along that line.

It is extremely important for us to recognize not just that we are promoting a leading Canadian industry, which is exceptionally important at this time, namely, the telecommunications industry, in which we are world leaders without doubt, but also how much of an interplay there is between culture and transportation, culture and communications, in the very fabric of our lives in this country.

On behalf of our colleagues, I appreciate very much the establishment of the International Telecommunications Discovery Centre in Brantford, and I compliment the minister for work in that regard.

14:01

ORAL QUESTIONS

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question to the Attorney General. He and the government will be aware that the Sunday shopping situation is very rapidly getting out of hand. The papers are full of ads for store openings, particularly by the large retail department stores, which intend to flagrantly violate the law on the forthcoming Sunday and Sundays right up to Christmas.

The government has indicated it cannot guarantee enforcement of the law as it stands. Employees do not know where they stand with respect to the provisions of the law and what the government is going to do. The government says it is awaiting the Supreme Court ruling, sitting on its duff awaiting the Supreme Court ruling, which may come this month and which may not. What is the government going to do to ensure obedience of the law in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not regard it as appropriate to say the Supreme Court of Canada is sitting on its duff. The point is that the case has been argued and has been reserved by the court, and I hope there will be a decision from the court shortly.

I should emphasize to the honourable member that, notwithstanding the views of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), who is on record in favour of an open Sunday, we propose to continue to lay charges and will do so, in particular if there are any breaches on the coming weekend.

I assure the member, as he knows, that any employee who does not care to work on Sunday and is employed in a trade that is regulated by the act is not obliged to work on Sunday. I assure all members that no jobs will be lost in Ontario by any employer attempting to force employees who do not want to do so to work on that day.

Mr. O'Connor: The Attorney General well knows the position of the Conservative Party as enunciated in our report at the beginning of this year. He also well knows the Leader of the Opposition would not advocate the breaking of the law.

Our report calls for, among other things, an increase in the penalties for violation of this act. Yesterday, the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) similarly called for an increase in penalties. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) also called for an increase in penalties.

Will the minister introduce an amendment today to increase the penalty section of that statute, which I can advise him will receive support from this party for passage in one day? If he will introduce that matter this afternoon, he will have the full support of this party to pass it immediately.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I assure the member I have read the blue volume he brandished. His party is not bound by the tyranny of discipline, as was made clear, so I understand well that the Leader of the Opposition has not referred to it.

I want to make one point, though, in response to the substantial question he raised on whether the penalties under this act should be increased. It is a good question, but I have come to the view that it is not appropriate to alter the act, and in particular to alter the penalties in respect of it, at the very moment when the propriety of the act is being considered in the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Gillies: By way of supplementary to the Attorney General --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brantford would like to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Gillies: Yesterday, both the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Solicitor General, in their various statements to reporters, said they felt the major problem right now was the level of fines.

Does the Attorney General not see that without touching the substance or form of the legislation, with the agreement of our party, we could pass interim legislation in one day to increase the fines to see him through what could be a very difficult Christmas period, until he has time to review the court decision and make substantial amendments? Will the minister not agree to do that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I understand the helpful offer the member and his party make. However, they surely understand that as a question of propriety, it is not right to amend legislation which at the very moment is under reserve in the Supreme Court of Canada.

When the Supreme Court of Canada gives its decision, if it upholds in general terms the constitutionality of the law, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has already indicated that will be the time when amendments of whatever variety will be considered. I believe it would be wrong, as a matter of principle, to amend the act at the very time when it is being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Brandt: Is he wrong to enforce the law during the same period?

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, and I am not.

Mr. Pope: With respect to the Attorney General, he is wrong on what he just said.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with respect to the Wyda matter. The minister has not been forthcoming with the members of this Legislature on this matter.

We have now obtained copies of the court documents, the application and the affidavits filed in the order of the court. Can the minister explain to me where his ministry and his government have made any attempts to recover the $462,525.98 paid personally to the president of Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., the $584,670 paid to Budgrove or the $30,000 paid to Canadian Intercorp? Can he explain to me from these documents where he has taken any steps to recover the public's money, that $3 million he threw away?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As was mentioned, the firm of Peat Marwick has been appointed to have a look at the books. We are awaiting that report, and we expect it some time within the next week and a half.

Mr. Pope: With respect, this minister does not know what he is talking about. Peat Marwick was appointed as interim receiver with respect to Wyda Systems (Canada) Inc., not with respect to Avi Dobzinski, not with respect to Budgrove and not with respect to Canadian Intercorp. What steps is the minister taking to recover the taxpayers' money that has now gone to these companies and to these individuals? There is nothing in the court documents. What steps is he taking?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We intend to wait until we receive the report from Peat Marwick to determine where and why any disbursements have been made.

Mr. Pope: This is a continuation of the lack of co-operation and the coverup of this government on this matter. We already have a member of the Premier's (Mr. Peterson) transition team personally involved in giving opinions on information to two of the parties that were involved in the original investigation by the standing committee on public accounts. We already know that lawyer met with the lawyer for the Liberal caucus. We also know those lawyers met briefly with the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). Will the minister stop this coverup and put this matter out to a judicial inquiry right away so we can get the public's money back?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: There is no coverup. This government took action over the weekend when it felt it needed to take such action, because the firm in question would not co-operate with the requests that were made by the public accounts committee.

Mr. Gillies: You did not co-operate with the public accounts committee.

14:10

NURSING HOMES

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. Can he tell us why his government continues to allow the trade in nursing home beds and, in effect, the trade in nursing home patients and the forced relocation of nursing home patients in Ontario when study after study documents the fact that people die as a result of forced relocation? There are studies which show that people die as a result of forced relocation; yet that is precisely what his government is condoning. Why is he doing it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I regret the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is not here to discuss the issue the honourable member has raised here today. I will certainly bring all his concerns to the minister's attention. If the member has specific concerns, I hope he will raise them here in the House.

Mr. Rae: The Premier can try to mumble his way out of this one if he wants to, but he cannot. People are dying as a result of forced relocations, and his government is condoning the practice. His government is doing nothing to stop the trade in nursing home beds.

The question I have for the Premier was raised with the Minister of Health on November 12 with respect to a home in St. Thomas. I am raising it today with respect to a home in Tavistock owned by Caressant Care. Why is this trade in nursing home patients and beds going on when we know it kills people?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I apologize to the member, but I am not familiar with the particular home he raises or the incidents that I gather he is referring to. As I told him before, I will discuss this with the Minister of Health and get back to him with the details.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I suggest to the Premier that this matter is extremely serious. His Minister of Health has not responded to the case in St. Thomas, which involved a nursing home as well as Caressant Care, which bought the one nursing home and forced the residents to move to its other nursing home, eliminating competition. It will kill people because of the transfer. The same thing is now happening in Woodstock, and Caressant Care is involved again.

I ask the Premier to talk to his Minister of Health and suggest that they put in place a policy that says we are not going to allow monopolies in regions and we are not going to force old people to move from one nursing home to another without consultation with the residents or the residents' families.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I will certainly discuss with the minister the matter the honourable member and his leader have raised in this House. I apologize; I am not familiar with the specifics of his question, but I will certainly discuss it with the minister and report back to him.

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Rae: I have a question to the Premier about the Goodyear closing. Can the Premier explain why his Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and his Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) would state in the House that legislation is being considered when, in fact, no legislation has been brought before cabinet or, as we understand it, any committees of cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: How does the honourable member know what is before cabinet? I know he likes to take credit for everything that is coming along, but how does he know what is being discussed on that matter?

As he knows, there is a suggestion that it should go before a committee of this House, and it is something we completely agree with. I gather there was a resolution to discuss this and I gather the House leader has suggested that this should be discussed at the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, something we completely approve of.

Mr. Rae: This is not good enough. The Minister of Labour has said, "Law Could Force Firms to Justify Layoffs, Wrye Says," an article appearing in today's Toronto Star. Yet at the same time it is perfectly clear, and the minister himself has admitted it, that no legislation is before cabinet and no legislation is before a committee of cabinet. Why would the Minister of Labour go outside and tell the workers at Goodyear that legislation is being contemplated when, on the Premier's own admission, it is not being contemplated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Why does the member not ask the minister? He is right here. Why not ask him the question? He is the one the member is quoting. I would be happy if the member would ask him.

Mr. Rae: No. I am asking the Premier of this province to deal with an issue that affects thousands of workers in this province who are being screwed around by a government and a Minister of Labour who do not care about them and by a Premier who would rather be flip than answer the questions that are put to him.

I would like the Premier to answer this question: when are we going to see legislation that is finally going to protect working people in this province instead of allowing corporations to continue to rip them off day in and day out in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I know my honourable friend would rather shout than solve some of these problems. The ministers have been very active in that particular situation.

Mr. Martel: No, they have not.

Mr. McClellan: He has had 18 months and he has not produced any legislation.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: They have been. A lot of work has been going on. A lot of alternatives are being explored in this situation. If the member is recommending we bring in legislation to say no plant can close in this province, that will probably not happen. That is rather unrealistic in the circumstances. A great deal of work is going on to find a constructive solution. Whether that can be found or not I cannot tell the member at this time. If he would like to instruct his members to bring it in front of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, he can have a thorough review of the situation. We are very happy with that alternative.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Gillies: My question is also to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He would have us believe that in the Wyda affair his government and his ministry are making serious and determined efforts to get to the bottom of this, to find Mr. Dobzinski and to see where the money is. Will the minister share with the House how two daily newspapers in this city could find out where Mr. Dobzinski is and, by his own concession, his intention not to return to Ontario? How could the press find all this out and lay it out while the minister and his officials were completely incapable of doing likewise? Does the minister not see that this points again to the necessity for a public inquiry into this matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are aware that Mr. Dobzinski is in Israel. He has chosen to deal with us through his lawyer. That dealing has been going on back and forth. The member is also likely aware that the standing committee on public accounts met with the Provincial Auditor, and the Ontario Development Corp. people met with him personally on November 12. Certain information the members required was asked for at that time. There was a subsequent meeting, on November 20. That information was still not forthcoming, but he chose to have the lawyers deal with us at that time. Because that information was not forthcoming, either to the public accounts committee or to us, we did bring the receivers in on Monday.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the minister's efforts are well intended, but does he not understand that the public accounts committee asked for an audit in this affair in September, and co-operation in that regard was not forthcoming from the ministry. We know this case goes to the very heart of the government. The minister's executive assistant met with officials of this company at one time, and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) was involved in one meeting regarding this affair. Does the minister not see that his government cannot itself investigate this matter, which has to go outside the government to a judicial inquiry, where it can be impartially and properly judged?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Several moves have been taken in this case. First, the public accounts committee has been investigating it. Second, Mr. Biddell has been appointed by this government to examine it. Third, we have now also placed in Peat Marwick to have a look at it. Pending the results of that, we will take further action.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour, with some reservations. In lockstep with other malls and shopping centres around the province, Cadillac Fairview has now sent around forms to all the tenants of the huge Limeridge Mall in Hamilton informing them that they will be open on Sunday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and requiring them to sign the forms. If charged, it is the individual tenant's responsibility.

This greed on the part of a few puts great pressure on individual tenants and workers. Can the minister tell the individual owner, and also the employee on salary, currently working 48 hours a week, who now has to work Sunday as well, what recourse he or she has if he or she does not want to work on Sunday? Can he give me some details? What the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) said is not worth the powder to blow it to hell.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will deal only in terms of the workers. The Attorney General has put the point quite properly. The opening of any establishment covered under the act is quite illegal. Indeed, it is also illegal for workers. Workers face the possibility of being charged. We expect that no worker will be forced to work on this Sunday or any other Sunday. The worker would be placed at risk in terms of prosecution as a result of working.

Mr. Mackenzie: That answer is not going to give a lot of heart to the workers involved. Is this government not now prepared to show some immediate leadership, act with much tougher legislation regarding store closings, including substantially higher fines, so that they are not mere licences, which is all they are at present, and clearly outline the right of workers in retail operations to a day of rest and proper hours? In other words, will the minister start giving the thousands of workers in the retail industry the same kind of break we give a few of the big money boys so easily today when the chains want to open?

14:20

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I do not think the honourable member will be surprised when I simply refer to the answer that was quite properly given earlier by my colleague in the House, in which he indicated that the appropriate time to move any amendments to the act would come after the Supreme Court renders its decision. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) indicated some time ago that any amendments this government might contemplate for the Legislature's consideration would come at that time.

LAYOFFS IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As he is probably aware, in October of this year, 5,200 layoffs took place in northern Ontario. With only 9.2 per cent of the population of Ontario, northern Ontario has been experiencing, on a continuing basis, about 25 per cent of all the layoffs that are occurring in Ontario. Can the minister share with me and with the members of this House the steps he has in mind on both a short-term and a long-term basis to create the necessary jobs in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: During the term of the previous government, the unemployment rates were also very high and sometimes even higher. Over the past six months, the member should have noticed the different steps our government has taken. First, a very important move was in appointing an assistant deputy minister of industry to help to bring secondary industry there. We have also moved many parts of ministries to that part.

Mr. Davis: There were 1,500 at Goodyear and thousands in the north. The minister is doing a good job.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have put out money through the Northern Ontario Development Corp., through the northern development fund and in many other areas to try to generate jobs in the north.

Mr. Brandt: It may be well to remind the minister that the relative unemployment rate at the time another government was in office was even far more attractive and appealing than what this government has been able to achieve, because at that time unemployment was far higher right across the country. What is the minister going to do about the 15.5 per cent unemployment rate in Sault Ste. Marie? What is he going to do about places such as Terrace Bay, with 65 recent layoffs, or Wawa or Lecours Lumber in Hearst that has just laid off 35 people? What plan of action does the minister have, other than to paper the entire north with his press releases?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We have made some very important moves to create jobs in the north and will continue in our hard work to do just that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the members would not mind, there are other members who would like to ask questions. I will just wait.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: How long do we have to wait before some other members can ask questions? Order.

DRUG BENEFITS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Can the minister tell us how many people who have been on provincial assistance he believes will be stripped of their provincial drug cards by the government because of increases in federal programs for widows, spouses and the disabled?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I presume the member is referring to people who are now going to be funded through federal programs as opposed to provincial programs. One group that comes to mind immediately is the seniors who are now 60 and were previously on our program but are going on the federal program.

We understood in some cases -- and I want to underline in some cases -- they would not be as well off under the federal program as under ours. In those cases we allowed them to retain the benefits that were available to them under the provincial program. Overall, the increase was something in the neighbourhood of about $130 a month and most of them would be better off under the federal program. That is why they are transferring to it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have no doubt as to why they are transferring to it. The question is why the minister is not providing them with drug cards. As he will know, women eligible for widows'-spouses' allowance since September 1, 1985, have been cut off eligibility for drug cards. As of January 1, with the maximum Canada pension plan disability going up, they will be slightly higher than the maximum for family benefits allowance and therefore all those disabled people at the maximum of $635 a month will also not be available for the drug cards.

Why is the minister letting the government largess at the federal level make him cheap at this level in not providing the drug cards these people need and deserve?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Perhaps the member did not appreciate the fact that in terms of total dollars available to them and in terms of the cost of the medicine they require, they can be better off under the federal program. If that is not the case, as I said, in some cases they are being left on the provincial benefits program. Second, they can be put back on the provincial program if a special need is determined and their costs are above and beyond what they were going to receive previously. There are options available.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have a question for the Attorney General. I understand he has now received a report from the Metropolitan Toronto Police on the investigation of his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). Will the minister table that report this afternoon so that all members of this Legislature can see the results of that investigation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I have not seen the report because I have been in the building today, not in my office. When I go back to the office at the end of question period I will examine the report and let the member know.

Mr. Sterling: Why would the Attorney General not table this report? Does it depend on whether this report bears good or bad news?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I will tell the member that things are not being done the way they were when my honourable friend was in office. I made plain many months ago the policy we have adopted with respect to the release of reports. If, for example, in the case of any investigation it is determined that a charge will be laid, it is not our practice to release reports for the very good reasons I think I gave when last asked about this some months ago.

I intend to examine the report and then I will determine the course I will take and advise my friend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) knows we go in rotation. I will recognize the member for the next question in rotation.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Laughren: I have a question of the Minister of Labour concerning the death of Inco miner Dick Kerr at the Garson mine on August 7 of this year.

For several months prior to Mr. Kerr's death, the union, the local steelworkers, and my colleague the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) had been trying very hard to arrange a meeting with the Minister of Labour because of the large number of rockbursts in that area and in other areas.

Can the minister tell us why he refused to meet with the union?

14:30

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There appears to be some confusion. There was some confusion on the part of some people. We had a meeting with the president of Local 6500 and with Mr. Sweezey, head of the health and safety unit at Local 6500. It was a breakfast meeting and it occurred on the same day I was to make a speech at Falconbridge. There may have been a more formal application from the union to meet in Toronto, but in essence the matters it wished to discuss in terms of having more ground control engineers were put to myself, the head of the mining safety branch and one of my assistants that day at breakfast, and action was taken.

Mr. Laughren: Given the gravity of the incident, that answer was unworthy of any minister of the crown.

There has been a large number of rockbursts in the area where Mr. Kerr was working. Just a matter of weeks before his death, a huge scoop tram was buried by a rock fall. The company -- Inco in this case -- knew full well how dangerous it was and still sent Mr. Kerr to work there. Will the minister assure us today that he will lay charges against Inco for sending a very special man to his death?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to assure the honourable member and his colleagues from the Sudbury area, and, indeed, his colleagues from the north, that we have moved to add additional ground control engineers. The government considers this matter quite serious and understands the point being made. I agree with my friend that it is a real tragedy. I believe my friend the member for Nickel Belt knew Mr. Kerr personally.

I should make another point in terms of the Kerr fatality. It is inappropriate for a minister to order the laying of charges because one then gets into the realm of political interference. I assure my honourable friend that the matter of reviewing the facts of the case, the facts of the inquest and the background the honourable gentleman raised in the House will be carefully considered by senior officials of the ministry and officials of the legal branch. If charges are the appropriate action, then charges will be laid.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Callahan: There is a rather large number of South Asians in my community and I try to meet with them on a regular basis. Some time ago, the minister responsible for multiculturalism apparently went through this province conducting hearings. I am asked on a fairly constant basis what the results of those hearings were and what they are being used for or are intended to be used for by the government. I direct that to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

Hon. Ms. Munro: This ministry has embarked on a number of negotiations with communities relating to multicultural programs. My colleague the Minister without Portfolio responsible for citizenship and culture (Mr. Ruprecht) has embarked on a number of community dialogues across the province.

To relate back to the question, the South Asian community took part in a number of think tanks several months ago. One of the questions raised in the think tanks was whether they could get together as a community to talk about developments so that they could feel they were in control of their own lives. We therefore hosted a conference on the weekend called South Asians in the '90s. The input received in think tanks from the South Asian community was only one of them. The Caribbean and Mediterranean communities were others. That input is part and parcel of information we are currently analysing as we work towards a revised multicultural policy.

IDEA CORP.

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I have seen news reports over the past 24 hours. Perhaps the minister can explain to the members of the Legislature and to the people of the province the role of one Leo Gray and the Cumberland Group with respect to the Wyda investment and the Spectrum Semiconductor matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I understand he was connected to Wyda and also to LSI Applications Inc., better known as Spectrum. It was a very large loan that the member's government approved a few days before we took over the government.

Mr. Pope: No. The minister's government reviewed and approved it.

Mr. Rae: It bought the difference.

Mr. Pope: Yes, it did.

How often did the minister, his staff or anyone else in this government, including the Premier (Mr. Peterson), meet with Leo Gray on this matter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I believe the member is incorrect. It was approved by cabinet and signed by the then Minister of Industry and Trade prior to our forming the government.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Pope: The minister should answer the question.

Mr. Gillies: What about the rest of the question? How often did the Premier meet with Leo Gray?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Brantford wait with his question?

Mr. Gillies: The minister forgot to answer the rest of the question.

Mr. Speaker: That is not up to the Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

[Later]

Mr. Pope: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology indicated that the LSI investment decision was not subject to review. On June 28, 1985, a report in the Globe and Mail clearly indicated that it was a decision subject to review. That is in accordance with the statements of the Treasurer and the Premier of the day.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a point of view.

RACE RELATIONS

Mr. Allen: I have a question for the Attorney General. We are reminded again in the case of the Enemy of Rambo doll how little protection minorities have in legislation in Ontario in cases of group defamation. Speaking to the press yesterday, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) said it was not an offence under the Ontario Human Rights Code in this instance.

The Attorney General and his ministry are familiar with the Cohen report, the McAlpine report and the more recent report by our erstwhile colleague Mr. Lawlor outlining a number of approaches to this question. Yet inquiries to the Attorney General's office indicate nothing is being done with regard to the suggestions from those reports.

Will the Attorney General tell the House whether he intends to act in any respect with regard to their suggestions or to take any other approach to strengthen the position of Ontario legislation vis-à-vis group defamation?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer to the group defamation problem, as the honourable member knows, is found in the answer to the class action problem. When some determination has been made about the circumstances in which classes of persons who are the victims of negligence or of tort have been resolved, we will have gone a long way to solve the group defamation problem.

I have been looking at the class action problem. I do not anticipate a solution will be available for this House before Mr. Justice Zuber presents his report on the structure of the courts in the late spring.

Mr. Allen: Perhaps the Attorney General will share a little more information with this House on the problem of dealing with the class action question. The very sensitive report of Mr. Lawlor laid out a number of precise possibilities that could be used by the Attorney General; for example, adding to the early sections of the Ontario Human Rights Code the phrase "or class of persons" and developing a new section that would deal with group defamation, which would precisely define the problem, the possibility of using cease and desist orders and so on.

Can the Attorney General tell us what the timetable might be, what the specific holdup is and how formidable an obstacle it is to getting on with this very important task of providing protections in law for minorities in our province in these cases?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I know Mr. Lawlor well and I have high regard for him. Frankly, I was not taken with the proposal in his report, which was, in effect, to turn the Ontario Human Rights Commission into a court for the purposes of awarding some of the remedies that courts have traditionally awarded in connection with libel and other torts. There are other remedies and, as I have indicated to my friend, I think the appropriate course is to look at class actions, which should lead to a solution, because then it will be possible to develop a mechanism for group defamation, a carrier for the group defamation cause of action to the court. As I have indicated to my friend, the best timetable I can give him is the date I gave.

14:40

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Sterling: I have another question for the Attorney General. For the past few weeks, he has stated on many occasions that he is not responsible for laying charges. With regard to the investigation of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes), who is going to make the decision to prosecute? Will it be the Attorney General, the Metropolitan Toronto Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, the cabinet of Ontario or the Solicitor General himself?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As usual, it will be the police who will decide. An individual policeman, no doubt the one investigating the case, taking what legal advice he wants, will decide whether he has reasonable and probable grounds to lay an information and is prepared to give oath to that effect.

Mr. Sterling: From that answer, I assume the Attorney General will give him advice on whether he should lay a charge.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should not draw any assumptions.

Mr. Sterling: If I was not to draw that assumption, why else would the Attorney General get a copy of the investigation report?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As I have indicated to the member on more than one occasion, most recently last night at six o'clock, before they lay an information the police are entitled to request legal advice on the legal sufficiency of the evidence they have obtained. In some cases that is a very simple matter, so simple that advice may not be required by the police. In other cases, it is a matter of very great complexity.

I have no reason to believe that any different practice than is normal will be followed as a result of this investigation.

CREDIT UNIONS

Mr. Swart: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. If the minister did not know already, he must know by now that the credit unions and caisses populaires in this province are strongly opposed to the Program for Change that he is trying to impose on them. He must also know by now that if proceeded with, the program can sink the weaker credit unions and caisses populaires and damage even the strong credit unions.

If it is not the minister's intent to do that, will he now tell the House that he will extend the term to 10 or 12 years instead of five years for building up the five per cent reserve he requires? Will he give the same extension for the repayment of the $50-million loan or perhaps $70-million loan he is forcing them to take?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I welcome the member's question because it gives me an opportunity to explain exactly what the program is and what it is not.

If the member saw the Provincial Auditor's report, one of the major comments he made in relation to the Ministry of Financial Institutions is the concern he has about the credit union movement.

I have spent considerable time travelling to every area in this province, meeting with credit union members to explain our Program for Change. I have said to them publicly and on many occasions that if they cannot meet the five-year deadline, if they can come up with a business plan that will extend it to seven, 10 or 12 years, we will be responsive to that.

My main concern is that we have a system with a deficit of about $80 million. We have provided a $50-million fund. Just for clarification, they do not have to take a penny of it if they do not want to. It is available to them at reduced interest rates. We did it as an accommodation to help them out of their problems. There are 800 credit unions in Ontario with assets of about $7 billion. We want to make sure they stay strong. About 10 of them could have a potential problem and we are trying to resolve that problem.

Mr. Swart: During the past few years it has not been the credit unions that have been a drain on the public purse, but rather the banks and the trust companies. The credit unions, through mergers and other ways, have not cost the province nor their membership anything. The minister says he has travelled the province, but he has not listened fully to the objections the credit unions have to his proposal.

The minister has told them they must borrow the $50 million from a private bank. Why can they not borrow it out of their own system when Credit Union Central has something like $850 million on deposit? Will the minister give some assurance that the staff that has done so well in rehabilitating the credit unions under Credit Union Central will continue to do the rehabilitation work whether it continues under Credit Union Central or the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp.?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: At the present time, the credit union system has a deficit of about $80 million. Of that $80 million --

Mr. Swart: They have a surplus of $121 million.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: They do not have a surplus. They have a deficit in the system of $80 million. Of that $80 million, $30 million is being handled by the stabilization funds and $50 million is not. They have proposed to me, "Why do we not borrow it internally?" The reason I have denied that is that is really creative accounting and they are using cash flow to finance their debt. Central alone has a debt of $10 million. How could it lend any money to anyone unless it is using cash flow?

I want to emphasize that most of the credit unions in Ontario are doing very well. We have about 10 per cent of them that are potential problems and we are trying to stabilize those. The member will know that in Alberta the credit union system has a deficit of $300 million. We are trying to stabilize the credit union system. I am totally committed to the credit union system. We want to make sure it works, but we want to help those that are in trouble.

ALCOHOL ON OPP BOAT

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Attorney General. I heard the response he offered my colleague a moment ago on the matter of the investigation of the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes). I want to remind the Attorney General that the police did not seek his advice in this matter before they laid charges. The police did not approach the Attorney General for legal advice or for any guidance whatsoever. The only reason the Attorney General has inserted himself in this is because he contacted the police and asked them to do an investigation and report back to him.

The minister does not insert himself in the situation if an average citizen has been found in circumstances similar to those that allegedly involved the Solicitor General. In that case, the police investigate and they decide, in accordance with what the minister has been telling us for days now, whether to lay charges.

Notwithstanding the answer the Attorney General gave my colleague a moment ago, why would he not simply have contacted the police and said, "Here is a situation I want you to investigate; if you decide charges are appropriate you lay the charges"? That should have been the normal procedure. They should not be reporting back to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I requested an investigation to be conducted because this was a case where, for whatever reason, no investigation occurred at the time of the offence.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: But no investigation occurred. As a result, we were confronted with this because of the fact that the Solicitor General very honourably had given a full account of what happened when he entertained the head of Scotland Yard on the boat. I asked the police to investigate, which, it being some months later, they would not ordinarily have done. Today, they have delivered to my department a report of their investigation. I do not see anything inappropriate in that.

Mr. Grossman: The time at which the alleged events occurred is irrelevant. If the Attorney General thought he wanted the police to investigate after we raised the matter in the House, then his appropriate direction, given the evidence he has been giving to this House for several weeks, is to contact the police and say, "Information has been brought to my attention that an offence may have been committed by the Solicitor General of this province. Will you investigate that and, if you think it is appropriate, lay charges?"

Under no circumstances should he as Attorney General have inserted himself between the police investigation and the decision on whether to lay charges against one of his colleagues, the Solicitor General no less. That is the degree to which the Attorney General has compromised himself and his responsibilities to cover up a political situation in his government.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: Therefore, I ask the Attorney General to explain to this House why he would not simply, in accordance with his advice to this House, have called the police and said, "Investigate the Solicitor General and if you think charges should be laid, lay charges."

Hon. Mr. Scott: Why it is is because I take a different view of my responsibilities than the honourable member does. He thinks one thing should be done. I think another thing should be done. I point out, and I think this is worth noting, the office of Attorney General is the one job in government in which I have more experience than does the honourable member.

14:50

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware that just a short while ago General Motors laid off approximately 1,300 workers at its Scarborough van plant. He should now be aware that General Motors has issued an overtime call to every one of the remaining 1,300 workers for every Saturday, starting this Saturday, indefinitely. I wonder what response the workers can expect from the minister in order to help those workers who were put on indefinite layoff while the company uses overtime with the remaining employees.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member will know that while the company may have asked for an amount of overtime and work on Saturdays for an indefinite period of time, that indefinite period of time could be a very long one or a very short one. The member will also know that the overtime will, as I gather, bring the period of work time each week for each of those employees to 48 hours, which does not extend beyond the standards now appropriate in the Employment Standards Act.

A task force has been examining this important matter for a long period of time, almost a year now. The research director of the Canadian Auto Workers was one of the five members of that task force. I await with some interest the report of that task force.

Mr. Warner: As usual, the response of the minister indicates that the effort on behalf of the government is about as swift as a centipede with fallen arches. The minister knows that one of the causes of this problem is the fact that we do not yet have in 1986 in Ontario a 40-hour work week. When is the minister going to bring in a 40-hour work week for this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Whatever amendments are appropriate to the Employment Standards Act and to the hours of work provisions of that act will be brought forward once a task force that is made up of a group of individuals from both labour and industry, chaired by Arthur Donner, can offer solutions that we hope will take this very important matter of employment standards not only through the rest of the 1980s but also into the 1990s.

There is no doubt that a provision of the act that was more than four decades old very clearly needed to be studied and updated. That has been under way for some time. I regret that, obviously, these things take time, but when we make these changes, I would rather do so correctly.

Clearly, these issues are very complex, and the solutions are not as simple as my friends over on that side of the House would have us believe. They always believe that solutions are simple and they rarely are.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Jackson: My question is of the Minister of Labour. Now that government inaction on Sunday shopping is creating chaos in the retail marketplace and retail employees in Ontario are expressing concern about their job security, I want to ask the minister a question about the fact that yesterday the Bay stores announced they would be opening on Sundays. They announced it to their employees. One employee, Mrs. Susan Lentin, who works at the Oakville Bay, called me this morning. She was told she must work on Sunday. She was advised, "If you cannot adapt, you are in the wrong business."

Will the minister call the Bay stores and investigate this matter?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: If the honourable gentleman wishes to send over the details, we will get in touch with his constituent.

However, it should be very clear that under the act it is illegal not only for those stores to open, but also for those employees to work. As the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has pointed out, we do not believe there will be one job lost out of this. Those companies that are contemplating ignoring the laws of Ontario should understand that their employees should not be asked to take the kinds of action they themselves are contemplating.

Mr. Jackson: I am pleased the minister is interested in the details, and he will have those. He got them in my question. I suspect that tomorrow he will advise this House specifically of his conversation with the Bay stores and what he was able to perform.

What about the thousands of other retail employees in Ontario? What is he going to be doing for them?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think I provided the answer to the honourable member. We are in an unfortunate situation.

Mr. Davis: You are letting it happen. Your government is letting it happen.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member should quiet down for a minute. if he has a question, he should ask it.

Mr. Davis: You are not doing anything. Come on, do something. Do not stand there and say nobody is going to lose his job.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We are in a situation where, regrettably, a number of retail companies have chosen to ignore the laws of Ontario. As a result of their decisions, we are now in a very difficult situation. We are attempting to deal with it as appropriately as we can.

Mr. Davis: You will not close the stores.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would like to tell the member for Scarborough Centre that the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has said many times that verbal cross-checking is out of order in this arena.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: In the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, the Premier, with regard to the difficulty of attracting health care professionals to northern Ontario.

The Premier will be aware that despite the efforts of the Ministry of Health, St. Joseph's General Hospital in Elliot Lake and the medical profession, as of December 15 there will no longer be any anaesthetist in Elliot Lake. That will mean that in emergencies, whether it be a mine accident, an automobile accident or perhaps an emergency caesarean section, as there was last week, the patient will have to be transferred, probably to Sault Ste. Marie or Sudbury.

Can the Premier indicate what is being done by this government to ensure that we do not have to continue to be dependent on locums only for communities such as Elliot Lake? What is being done to assist in attracting other doctors, whether they be foreign doctors or whatever, who are prepared to emigrate to this province to operate and practise in the north?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am very much aware of the problem the honourable member mentions, and he is quite right in his facts. It is my understanding that two or three days a week -- and he will correct me if I am wrong -- an anaesthetist is coming in from Peterborough. However, that does not take care of the problem he raises of emergency surgery. The ministry is aware of the problem and is trying to attract someone there.

15:00

Unfortunately, I can offer the member no instant solutions at the moment, except the solutions of which my friend is aware. It is a problem in other communities in northern Ontario as well. We are exploring his suggestion, it is something we have mentioned before, with respect to foreign-trained doctors; but he is aware, I am sure, that this would not solve the immediate problem. Frequently, those people are not specialists. That is what we really need in northern Ontario as opposed to the general practitioner, although there are some individual problems in that regard.

I can assure him the minister is working actively on the problem. There is nothing I can tell the member today to say that we have solved the problem, but I am sure we are prepared to share with him the information as it develops.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the Premier's response, but in this particular case, we could be training more general practitioners to be able to administer anaesthetics.

Can the Premier explain why his government cut the funding for anaesthesia training in this province so that six fewer anaesthetists are being graduated each year? What will he do to increase the funding to medical schools to train more GPs to administer anaesthetics so that they can practise in the smaller communities and so that we will not be dependent just on luck in the case of an emergency caesarean, as we were last week in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member will be aware that the problem is not the number of trained professionals; it is the distribution of trained professionals. Theoretically, we could train 20 more anaesthetists in southern Ontario, but that does not mean they are going to go to Elliot Lake to practise or to wherever else they are required in northern Ontario. The question is one of developing programs or some contractual arrangement whereby they agree to practise in certain designated areas.

There is a program, as the member knows, that has been in the government for some time to attract people to those areas, and we are continuing to work on that. There have also been suggestions with respect to foreign-trained doctors. However, it is not just a question of training more health care professionals. What we do find is that, particularly in some areas of southern Ontario, we have a higher doctor-patient ratio than is necessarily required or suggested by the World Health Organization, while we have the exact opposite in northern Ontario, and it is a question of attracting them to those areas.

It is something that has concerned me for a long time. I do not have an instant answer for the member and I apologize for that. However, we will certainly work very hard with him and with the community to get the appropriate person in Elliot Lake.

Mr. Bernier: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last night at six o'clock this House took a vote on section 18 of Bill 7. At that time, I asked the Chairman of the committee to allow the House to have a recorded vote. The government House leader denied the unanimous consent to have a recorded vote on that section of Bill 7.

I want to bring to your attention, sir, and to the attention of all members of the House that, as a courtesy, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail today printed the names of all those people who voted for that section of the bill and all those who voted against; they have also listed the names of those who were absent. It is there. If anybody would like it, it is in the paper today.

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to understand the member on that point of privilege. I believe it was a vote of thanks on your behalf to the Globe and Mail, if I am not mistaken. It certainly was not a point of privilege.

PETITION

TRAFFIC LIGHT

Mr. Wildman: I have a petition signed by 326 residents of Algoma district. It reads as follows: "To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and in particular the Honourable Ed Fulton, Minister of Transportation and Communications.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That a traffic light be installed at the intersection of Highway 546 and Highway 17 in the village of Iron Bridge, Ontario, due to the poor visibility and high accident risk at this junction."

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr55, An Act to revive 546672 Ontario Limited.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston from the standing committee on social development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Skills Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Skills development program, $347,118,900.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Curling moved third reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes.

Hon. Mr. Curling: There are very few acts of parliament that bring about permanent and lasting benefits for hundreds of thousands of poor people. Bill 51 is such an act.

I believe Ontario will remember that on this day, December 3, 1986, members of this House moved to establish the foundation for affordable housing for the tenants of Ontario. The Residential Rent Regulation Act is legislation that is rooted in one compelling ethic, that is, fairness to every tenant who seeks a secure, well-maintained home in return for a reasonable rent.

At the same time, this legislation encourages the construction of a healthy supply of new rental units. The hallmark of this act is the seeking and finding of a delicate balance between the interests of those who live in rental housing and those who provide rental housing. The promise of this act is the creation of a rent review system that will serve the people of this province well, both now and for many years to come.

The Residential Rent Regulation Act is not a quick-fix solution. The Residential Rent Regulation Act is legislation designed to stand the test of time, legislation designed to establish a long-term environment of economic stability in the rental market and to provide a lasting supply of affordable rental housing that the people of this province both need and deserve.

This is legislation for every tenant in this province. This legislation will protect those who live in rural areas, in the north and in small towns across Ontario, as well as those living in our large cities. This is legislation designed to protect families with low incomes as well as those with higher incomes and to protect the handicapped and the elderly.

This legislation will play a vital role in providing secure tenure and decent surroundings for every individual who lives in rental accommodation in Ontario. This is unique legislation, for it is based upon an unprecedented process of consultation and co-operation among those whose interests it will serve.

15:10

At this time, I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the 18 men and women -- nine representatives of tenants' associations from across Ontario and nine representatives of landlords, builders and investors -- who gave more than four months of their lives to agree on the core provisions of this legislation.

The members of the Rent Review Advisory Committee, appointed in December 1985, have forged a new and profoundly important precedent in the history of our provincial government. By working together, they addressed an issue of serious conflict and urgent need, an issue that had been building in intensity for close to 10 years. They have created a legislative solution that is truly responsive to that issue.

William Grenier, president of Pagecorp Inc., and Mary Hogan, former director of Parkway Legal Services, set aside their personal interests and agreed to act as co-chairpersons of RRAC. The dedication and commitment of these two individuals only underscored my absolute belief that both landlord and tenant representatives were prepared to be fair and reasonable, to listen to the other side's point of view and to work towards a solution that would bring to an end the bitter debate between landlords and tenants that had raged for close to a decade.

It was not easy. It was an extremely painful exercise but a necessary one. The 18 members of RRAC met for more than four months, late into the night and through long weekends. They argued and debated, searching for a solution to rent review that would be fair. The outcome of their discussions was an agreement upon a system of rent review that would reflect two essential goals: improved protections for tenants and the encouragement of the development of new rental units. That agreement is incorporated in the legislation before this House today.

What are the major features of the Residential Rent Regulation Act? It provides for the extension of rent review to cover all private rental units in Ontario, including buildings constructed before and after 1986. It provides for the creation of a streamlined rent review process designed to be accessible and efficient and to ensure consistency through administrative review. It provides for the establishment of a flexible rent review guideline to be adjusted annually to reflect changes in inflation. It provides for the creation of a province-wide rent registry to record the maximum legal rent for every rental unit in the province. It provides against the charging of key money and other illegal practices. It provides for the establishment of a Residential Rental Standards Board to assure tenants properly maintained premises. It provides for a costs-no-longer-borne mechanism to prevent the penalizing of tenants for retired capital and financing costs. It encourages the development of new rental housing in this province.

An essential part of the institution of a new system of rent review in Ontario will be a thorough and wide-ranging initiative to provide full information about the system to all tenants and landlords. We want people to understand their rights under this system and to avail themselves of these rights. We want people to perceive this new system as available to serve and assist them, not to intimidate them. We want Ontarians to have full information about every aspect of the system. Information materials will be available in 13 languages, in addition to French and English. We are determined that Ontario's new rent review system will be open, accessible and fair to every individual who uses its services. In the months ahead, public information sessions about the new system will be held across the province.

I want to make it clear that Bill 51 is not legislation created in isolation; it is an integral part of this government's comprehensive housing policy through its assured housing strategy. Through assured housing, my ministry has made commitments in the past 12 months to support the construction of 19,000 new rental units and significantly increase Ontario's housing supply. These units are being delivered through nonprofit and co-op housing programs in co-operation with the federal government, the convert-to-rent program, the Renterprise program and a special allotment of 3,000 units directly targeted for the hard-to-house. These commitments, together with a system of rent review created by Bill 51, are the cornerstone of our concerted initiative to create a healthy supply of affordable rental housing.

As we move to give third reading to Bill 51, I believe it deserves recognition as legislation reflecting a true accord -- a word we hear around here so often -- an accord between this government and the people of Ontario, an accord between the tenants and landlords, an accord between the members of this House.

I wish to congratulate not only the members of my own party but also all members of this House for their interest and involvement in Bill 51. This bill stands as proof that our parliamentary system, with its provision for honest challenge and response, for proposal and amendment and for the contribution of all points of view, is a system that works and works well.

The legislative process has often been controversial. The debate moved out of this House during the hearings of the standing committee on resources development and then back into the House. The opposition parties have had criticism and have expressed that criticism frankly. Yet on both sides of this House, the few of my colleagues who are here, those listening on the monitors outside and the one New Democratic Party member who is present, have demonstrated a consistent and conscientious concern for the tenants and landlords of Ontario and for the protection and extension of the province's rental housing stock. Members have served their constituents well, and today I am especially proud to be a member of this House.

I want to take this moment to thank the chairman of the standing committee on resources development, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), who presided over all the hearings and conducted that committee in a very professional way. I have grown to respect him tremendously, and his party should be proud of him. We are all very proud of the way he conducted those hearings.

I also wish to extend my congratulations for the support that has been given to me by the civil servants who have worked tediously through the night with great dedication and loyalty, and to the members of my own staff in the ministry who have watched this and laboured through this with dedication. They feel that with the support of all, we have made this a reality.

15:20

Mr. Gordon: In addressing my remarks to the minister, I must say there is no doubt a great deal of time, a remarkable amount of time, has been spent on this bill.

The minister will recall that when he started to talk about housing in this province, in the Assured Housing for Ontario paper he introduced in December 1985, he talked about the importance of providing for every citizen and making sure every citizen of this province had a roof over his head. He also indicated it would be his government's intention to see that this came about.

I read that in his assured housing paper, which I was glancing through today to refresh my memory as to the things this government promised. In that paper, the minister also promised he would bring in rent controls that would extend to every rental unit in Ontario. He has kept the second promise. He has brought rent control to every unit.

At the same time, I look around this province today and ask myself, how relevant is Bill 51 when we look at the questions of affordability and supply of rental units in the province? I do not see much relevance. If we look at the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. figures, we find the vacancy rates across the province have continued to decline. This means more of our citizens are faced with not having roofs over their heads. This means we can expect again this winter, God forbid, the kinds of horror stories we were unfortunate enough to read about in last winter's newspapers.

We have to ask ourselves, "Does a rent registry create more housing in this province?" The answer is no. We also have to ask ourselves, "Would this Legislature have objected to a rent registry in December 1985?" If we had queried each member of this Legislature, I am sure the answer would have been no; they would have voted at that time for a rent registry.

It was quite obvious that there was a need in this province for every tenant to know that when he moved from one apartment unit to another, the rent he was about to pay was not an inflated rent that had been jacked up since the last tenant left, but was a true rent, a rent that had been built up over a period of years by the landlord; a proper, true, honest and fair rent. Would this Legislature have said no to a rent registry in December 1985? The answer is that it obviously would have said yes to it. Would we have said yes to it in January 1986, in February 1986 and throughout the following months? The answer is yes.

We have to look at another measure in this bill, the point of costs no longer borne. This is a matter of simple justice. A very mundane example but one that is very understandable is that of a landlord who has put a new roof on his building. Is it right that those tenants should have to go on paying for that roof for years after it has been paid for? Of course it is not proper or just that the roof should be built into the rent for ever and a day. Would the party that I represent or the members of the third party have objected to a bill that did away with costs no longer borne? Of course we would have agreed to a bill of that nature.

Let us take a look at some of the other matters in this bill.

Something the minister referred to a moment ago is the issue of key money. We recognize it is necessary to do away with something such as key money that preys on the innocent and is a result of the tremendous shortage of rental housing in this province. Not one of us in this Legislature would have objected to that. We have not objected to it. We would have supported measures being brought in to handle this issue long before this. I could go on and on.

What does this bill do? Let us cover some of the highlights of the bill. I am sure the minister or one of his fellow members on the other side will remind me of some of the other glories of this bill before this afternoon is over. I expect he will do that. Why not? He should go right ahead and be my guest.

Let me cover some of the highlights of the bill and then ask some questions this afternoon. They are good questions, ones that I know the minister will appreciate because he has a sense of humour. However, I am not sure how quickly he acts. That is one of the problems I want to talk about. No one will deny that the minister has a sense of humour.

The minister talked about a rent registry as one of the highlights of the bill. He also talked about costs no longer borne; a Residential Rental Standards Board, a very interesting concept and one that appeals to our party; a Rent Review Hearings Board; doing away with key money; and trying to do something about those apartment units in Ontario that are suffering from chronically depressed rents. We have to agree there was a need for that.

Finally, there was the new formula for establishing rents in Ontario that operates on the three-year moving average and the famous residential complex cost index and building operating cost index, which the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) talked about in such a remarkable fashion some months ago. He talked about the two characters, RCCI and BOCI, and asked which came first, who was RCCI and what was BOCI? I am sure there are still many tenants and citizens in this province who still do not know what RCCI and BOCI are, but I am sure it will become clearer as the months go on.

We do not object to there being a formula based on the cost component, the consumer price index. That seems a reasonable way to approach the problem. Where I do have a problem with the minister and the government is the fact that he tied up the tenants and landlords for more than a year and all he did was to come up with a new way of determining rents.

The minister brought in a few other items we would have agreed to months ago, and he has announced this as being a great policy for Ontario. He announced it as a bill that will bring wondrous changes; and yet everywhere we went in Ontario for the various hearings on this bill, we were told time and time again, despite the fact that the minister almost pleaded with the developers who came forward to say such things as, "Yes, we will build more rental units in Ontario as a result of this great bill," the point is that the developers, it was quite obvious, became exceedingly uncomfortable when this question was posed to them, because they know that what they are doing today is building single-family housing, detached homes and condominiums, and they are not even in the least interested in building what we would call the upper-end rental units in Ontario.

15:30

Oh, they might be building a few, but that is not going to provide housing for all those people in Ontario who do not have housing right now. It is not going to provide housing for the 200,000 people in Ontario who have what we call affordability problems, meaning they cannot afford the kinds of rents that are currently in the marketplace. It does nothing for them. The fact that they might build a few apartment buildings at the high, luxury end, which will not become available for at least 20 years, is not going to help the 40,000 families in this province who are on waiting lists for housing today. It is not going to help them.

Therefore, these developers, it is quite clear -- oh, there may have been one or two. The minister could probably find one or two who relented and could see that he really wanted them to say, "Yes, we will build as a result of Bill 51, Minister." There were a few who gave in and mumbled something such as: "It will do a lot to restore confidence, you know. Yes, I guess we will build."

They were just swallowing themselves, because when one talks to the development industry, they say, almost to a man or a woman: "No, we are sorry. Bill 51 does not mean more affordable rental units being built in this province. Bill 51 does not mean more supply of rental units in this province. Bill 51," they will say quite clearly, "is a rent control bill." The other point they will raise is, "We became involved in this process because we viewed it as damage control."

It is obvious then that the equation the minister has worked out for himself, the equation for providing more housing in this province, more supply, has not been fulfilled. This bill does not bring that about.

To illustrate some of the problems that are facing this government with regard to the supply of housing, I will enter some statistics and some facts into the record. I do not want the minister to think I went out and just created these statistics and these facts out of my own fantasies. I would not want him to think that for a moment, because that is not the case. As a matter of fact, these are statistics and an analysis that have been worked out as a result of conversations with the Ministry of Housing and as a result of conversations and discussions with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp.

I would just like to give the minister some of the problems that I see in Ontario right now with the supply of housing and also with the affordability of housing in this province, some of the things that the bill the minister has introduced does not answer in any way, shape or form.

I know he is going to listen to me very attentively as well. I know the whip, who is sitting next to the minister, is working on figures assiduously as I speak. I am glad to see the minister has some help at hand, because it always helps to have somebody who is ready to pitch in and do that. The minister will notice that I do not have anybody on either side of me here who can give me the kind of help the minister is going to get, but then again, I do not have all the assistants and all the ministry officials ready to be there at my beck and call, although I do see some of them sitting underneath the gallery right now. I know they are going to get their pens and pencils out in a hurry just as soon as I put some of these statistics down, but I understand that this is what they are paid to do. Nevertheless, let us look at some of the problems in this province at present.

We have 1.1 million rental units in Ontario. Of those 1.1 million rental units, 450,000 are high-rise and approximately 650,000 are low-rise and grade-level homes. Why would I introduce statistics such as these into this House at this time in this debate about Bill 51, which, as I am sure the minister will admit, is by and large a rent control bill?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is a rent review bill.

Mr. Gordon: It is a rent review bill. Pardon me. If rather than call it a rent control bill, the minister wants to call it a rent review bill, I will acquiesce.

Nevertheless, the minister might ask and some of his civil servants sitting under the press gallery might be inquisitive enough to ask why I would take the time to point out that there are 1.1 million rental units in this province, approximately half being high-rise and the other half being low-rise, I point it out because I would like to put on the record one of the very severe problems this government is going to be faced with. It is an ongoing problem that has been happening and that is going to get even worse as each year goes by. It is a problem the minister's bill does not answer in any way, shape or form. Despite the fact that he has spent almost a whole year diddling and dawdling over this thing, he has done nothing about this problem.

Of the high-rise, by 1990, 50 per cent of the existing stock will be more than 50 years old. The cost to upgrade and maintain them will be between $1 billion and $6 billion, according to the ministry. As well, of the low-rise, by 1990, 65 per cent will be more than 50 years old and 25 per cent are likely to be lost by 1995 because of demolition or change of use.

There is just one problem that faces the Minister of Housing. I know he will get up later on and say, "I introduced a program just a matter of months ago to provide some moneys towards high-rise and low-rise reconstruction and reconditioning," but any viewer or any listener will be quick to point out and quick to pick up on the fact that the amount of money he is talking about and the number of units he is addressing himself to will in no way begin to meet the need.

The point I am trying to make is this, and there are many illustrations I could use: we have a crisis with the supply of housing in Ontario today. We have a crisis that is beyond anything we have ever seen in this province. Is it $2.5 billion that the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has racked up? Is that not the figure? Perhaps one of the members on the other side would like to enlighten me. However, when we look at the millions and millions of dollars of revenue that the Treasurer took -- I have to say took -- from the citizens of this province by increasing taxes, when we consider the amount of money that has been taken and when we look at the crisis in housing today and see how little of that money is being put into the housing field, we have to question how sincere this government is about trying to ameliorate things and do something about the people who are suffering because they do not have homes or because they cannot afford the homes they are living in. There are those who are coming into the market because they cannot find a rental unit anywhere in this province. In Metro in particular, they cannot find a place to live.

What is the minister doing about it? He is doing virtually nothing. Bill 51 is, to use the minister's words, a rent review bill. It is not really a supply bill and it is not really an affordability bill, and the minister has not convinced anybody of that. The question is, when is this government going to meet its obligations to provide housing for the people of Ontario?

15:40

Let us put a few more statistics on the table. It is projected that 12,000 to 17,000 rental housing units a year are required for the next 10 years. In the Ministry of Housing projections, the need for 1985 was 19,600 units. The housing starts for 1985 were 11,500, which left a shortfall of 8,100 units. The need for 1986 was 19,600 units, and the shortfall was 10,600 units.

When are we going to begin to address in a meaningful way the supply of housing in Ontario? Bill 51 rationalizes the way in which rents are established; we can see that. We on this side of the House recognize and have recognized for some time the need for a rent registry, for a provision for costs no longer borne, for a maintenance board, for the elimination of key money and for some of the other items that were in that bill.

While the minister took those steps and while he kept a committee of landlords and tenants tied up for months and intends to keep them on for another number of months trying to work out regulations for this bill, the whole issue of supply and affordability of housing in Ontario, particularly rental housing, came unstuck and floated away. It is still floating. This is the area that has been neglected. There has been much fanfare about Bill 51; yet as the people of Ontario examine what happens in the coming months, they are going to become increasingly critical that the minister has not addressed this problem but has spent his time fooling around with rent control.

We in this party attempted to bring some measure of sanity to the deliberations. We recognize, as many Ontarians are beginning to recognize and as many of his editorial writers recognize, that to institutionalize rent controls in the manner he has proposed is to create long-term problems for all citizens in Ontario. Thus, we brought forward an amendment that would have lifted rent controls in any municipality where there was a vacancy rate of four per cent or more.

Some people said, "My goodness, imagine a member of this Legislature saying rent controls should be lifted in a municipality where there is a vacancy rate of four per cent or more." They talked about it as though it were some kind of courageous act. I do not view it as a courageous act. I view it as an act that says, "Look, let us have some sanity in this process." If the minister had taken that amendment and put it in his bill, it would have sent out a very clear message that would have said, "Look, we are interested in seeing more rental units built in Ontario."

The amendment also recognized we have this crisis in the rental housing department in Ontario today. It was quite obvious he could not remove rent controls with that kind of situation, but he could in a municipality where the developers and the nonprofit people, with the help of the government, launched a crash program of building to meet the tremendous backlog of rental housing for its people. Instead, it was rejected by the government, and the amendment was defeated.

Our party is proud of the role we played in obtaining what the government is going to call a rent supplement program for those tenants living in apartment units that have chronically depressed rents, which will be increased by an additional two per cent to bring that landlord's rents up to a higher value to rationalize the economics of owning such a building. It was our party and this critic who insisted all the way through that there should be a program provided so that tenants living in the chronically depressed rental units would be protected from an increase as a result of those units obtaining an additional two per cent in rent.

However, I must say I am disappointed. While the government acceded to our arguments to a degree, I am not happy it decided to make it a rent supplement program. We believe a shelter allowance paid directly to the tenant would have been far better than a supplement paid directly to the landlord. That is the government's decision and it will have to live with it.

At this time, I would also like to point out some of the problems faced by our citizens. We talk about the core needy in this province. We talk about people who are living in rental units they cannot afford. We talk about them as being core needy. It is a new phrase. Every so often, to try to show it is doing something or that it understands a problem, the government will come up with a new way of talking about a problem that exists in this year of our Lord 1986.

Those people who are termed core needy are citizens who pay more than 30 per cent of their income in rent. At present, 32 per cent of those people who are paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rent in this province are elderly people. I thought and my party thought that the one place where we could begin to explore providing more money for people who suffer in this manner by paying more than 30 per cent of their income in rent, one place where we could begin to develop a program that could be extended to the 32 per cent of the population who are core needy and who are elderly, would be a project of shelter allowances to the chronically depressed rental unit tenants.

We know that many of those people who are living in chronically depressed rental units, the so-called affordable rental units, are elderly people. Those people who are elderly and do not live in those more affordable units with chronically depressed rents, who are the core needy, would benefit from the shelter allowance program. It is something the ministry should have pursued in a much more diligent fashion.

15:50

I talked about the minister's thoughts on establishing confidence in the building industry and his idea of the trickle-down theory, which is that in 20 years the government gets some housing units built. Obviously, that is not going to work.

Let us talk for a moment about affordability. What does create affordable housing in a province such as ours? How do we get affordable housing? There has to be a supply. When we look out at our province today and see what is going on, so few rental units being built, it is obvious why rents are so high. Rents are high because the supply is not there. If we could get more supply, we would get competition between landlords and developers and rents would begin to fall.

Ms. E. J. Smith: Good.

Mr. Gordon: I am glad to hear the whip, by her remarks from the other side, believes I am finally understanding something about housing. It is too bad the television people will not make a little inset here and have her picture on opposite mine. She could explain what she would like to explain to the people.

It is obvious that this bill does nothing for supply. As a result of doing nothing for supply, we have some very real problems that are going to continue in this province.

In summation, I would like to see this government spend some of the money the Treasurer has gathered into his coffers by charging the citizens of this province exorbitant tax increases. I would like to see him give some of that money back directly to the citizens, which will never happen under this government because it would rather spend money. I would like to see this minister announce a crash program to provide more housing units, particularly in the nonprofit co-op area. No matter where we go in this province, we will find that the co-op movement, the nonprofit movement, is quite prepared to build. The problem is that it cannot get enough allocations.

The minister will say he has not been able to do it because he cannot find enough builders who want to build or he will make other excuses. He will say he cannot find enough building material. I know one thing he is going to tell us this afternoon. Later on he is going to say that two years from now, as a result of this bill, there is going to be much more housing in this province.

I say to the people of Ontario, look around. This government has spent the time since December 1985 muddling around with a bill that is merely a rent control bill, that does not create more housing and that does not necessarily make housing more affordable than it is right now; yet it will try to claim that a rent review bill somehow, in some mysterious and miraculous fashion, is going to provide more housing.

If that is what the minister calls a housing policy, if that is what he calls enlightened government, I have news for him. The people of Ontario, in two years' time, are going to decide that the government does not know how to provide supply. They are going to turn on the government and throw it out of office.

Mr. Reville: My colleagues must have dropped off during the address of the member for Sudbury, which was rude of them.

I have a fan of legislation in my hand and a glass of water on my table. This fan of legislation is part of the story of Bill 51, which started off under a different name. It started off as Bill 78. It was a slim bill with 38 pages. This frazzled bill is the first-reading copy of Bill 51, introduced on June 5. I have a working copy with my name on it. I worked with it, and that is why it looks frazzled. It was getting fatter, as do many of us who hang around this Legislature. It was 56 pages long.

This one, even more dog-eared and more pathetic -- I am not speaking at the moment about its contents but about its appearance -- is the bill I wrote all over during the clause-by-clause stage. It was 60 pages long, and that is because it had started to absorb some of the 120 government amendments to which this bill was subjected.

Now we have this pristine, unused, unblemished Bill 51, which is the reprint at the conclusion of clause-by-clause debate not long ago. It has grown to a fat 68 pages because it absorbed the 120 government amendments, one amendment of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and six amendments of mine as the member for Riverdale and a New Democrat. It is a fatter bill, but I submit that the fatness of the bill will not provide the protection for the tenants of Ontario that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) says it will and that I guess, with regret, the member for Sudbury, from the Progressive Conservative Party, has decided to support.

The process was perhaps one of the most curious of processes. I see the minister is wearing a flower today. Perhaps it is appropriate, given that he has come to the end of a very long and arduous job. I congratulate him for that, but I do not congratulate him for the contents of the bill. I am profoundly disappointed in the tenant protection that is being offered. In fact, in some respects, this bill offers less tenant protection than the previous legislation did, and that is a very strange way to move forward.

I see in the House a number of people with whom I spent a long time. I see the member for London South (Ms. E. J. Smith), the minister and the member for Sudbury. At the back, I see a number of people who worked very hard throughout our process.

An hon. member: Name one.

Mr. Reville: There was Mr. Peters, Dr. Laverty, Ms. MacPherson and Ms. Stratford and, up in the gallery, Mr. Richmond, who managed to collect all the remarks that were made at committee. I was glad he was there because --

Mr. Philip: He worked so hard his beard fell out.

Mr. Reville: Try to ignore the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), please, Mr. Richmond.

Mr. Speaker, I will address my remarks to you and urge other members of the Legislature to do that as well.

Mr. Richmond and I paid careful attention to the deputations that were made.

Interjection.

Mr. Reville: I wonder whether the security guard would stop harassing the man who carried Bill 51.

The reason I mention that Mr. Richmond listened to all the deputations is that I know he did because he wrote down what they said and published it in four volumes. I wish the government had listened. What happened in this process was that when the government went into this committee, it had already made up its mind. Regardless of the fact that we went to six cities and heard from 181 deputations, not one of the government amendments flowed from those deputations. Instead, they flowed from an extraparliamentary committee that the government set up, called the Rent Review Advisory Committee.

It was a very curious process; to invite people to come forward to give their views and then to be unprepared to listen to their views. I have talked before about the two overarching themes of this bill, according to the government: the historic consensus arch and the investor confidence arch. Both arches have been demonstrated quite definitively to be invisible arches created by the wordsmiths who toil somewhere in the bowels of the Ministry of Housing.

16:00

The historic consensus, while indeed an example of an interesting approach in terms of consultation, was in the end a consensus among 18 people or perhaps 17 people. It was a consensus in the context of a housing policy that had been overlaid by the Minister of Housing and the ministry officials and within which the consensus-makers had to achieve consensus.

What was clear in the public hearings was that not one tenants' group in Ontario supported the consensus that was achieved by RRAC; not one. In fact, a large number of the landlords who came before the committee, as carefully orchestrated by the good organizing techniques of the Fair Rental Policy Organization as they were, said this bill would not encourage them to build.

They also did a very curious thing, which those of us who sat through the committee remarked upon often to one another. They spent 90 per cent of their deputation cursing rent review and cursing the idea that there should be any fetter on their endeavour whatsoever. At the end of this 90 per cent presentation they would say, "But you must pass Bill 51."

There is one thing on which tenants and landlords do agree: Bill 51 weakens rent review in Ontario. Tenants believe that and landlords believe that. That is why the landlords on the one hand ran a multimillion-dollar end-rent-review campaign, while on the other hand they spent thousands of dollars to send their people to the hearings to say, "Please pass Bill 51 and do not upset the delicate balance."

It sounded like a Greek chorus with the Minister of Housing flanked by landlords saying: "Do not upset this delicate balance. You do not dare amend the bill." It was an extraordinary process, one I do not think we often see around here and one I hope we do not see around here very often.

I moved 57 amendments to this bill; the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives combined to defeat 51 of them. It was an extraordinary change of heart on the part of the Tories, because during the hearings it was clear the Tories were not clear on what they wanted to do about rent review and Bill 51. They were not clear because they were listening to what the people had to say.

They were concerned about the affordability problems of tenants. They were concerned about the problems some small landlords are having, which are not addressed in the bill. They were concerned that the bill, in their opinion, would not create any housing at all.

I agree with that position. I do not think this bill will cause one stick of housing to be built, but then I never believed this bill was a supply bill; I thought this was a consumer protection bill, and in that regard it fails.

There is some deeper background to the bill. The background goes back to 1975 when New Democrats were able to convince the Progressive Conservative government of the day to bring in rent review. The years passed. It was clear there were problems with rent review.

From the beginning, our party thought it was useful to have a rent registry. It did not make sense to New Democrats to regulate prices and not to have a price list so that people could find out the legal rent on their units. For years the Progressive Conservative government refused to establish such a rent registry. Even though it appeared in legislation, it was never proclaimed.

During the election campaign of 1985, all three parties talked long and eloquently about rent review, and after May 2, when members of my party were negotiating with members of the other two parties to see who should lead this province, tenant protection was very high on our list. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) put his name to a document on May 28, 1985, which committed his government to enacting tenant protection reform.

The accord was extremely specific about what should be done. It included: establishment of a rent registry; establishment of a four per cent rent review guideline; inclusion of the provisions of Bill 198, which has to do with costs passed through as a result of refinancing, as a permanent part of the Residential Tenancies Act; extension of rent review to cover post-1976 buildings; an end to the $750-a-month exemption; introduction of a rent review procedure to deal with costs no longer borne by landlords; and introduction of enabling legislation to permit demolition control by municipalities.

Nothing could have been clearer than that. The government has betrayed not only the New Democratic Party but also the people of Ontario. It did not deliver this. Instead, as soon as Mr. Grenier walked into the minister's office and said, "The landlords will not put up with this," the Liberal government broke its promise and established a Rent Review Advisory Committee as a buffer between it and the people of Ontario and the promises it made to my party and to the people of Ontario.

The people of Ontario know the Liberal government has broken its promise. I am happy to tell the members that in the past few weeks the people of Ontario have been corresponding with me. They have been on the telephone with me. They have sent petition cards to me. At last count, we are in contact with an extraordinary number of people from all parts of Ontario who are offended that the Liberal government broke its promise and insulted that the Liberal government feels they have no memory.

I have had 8,736 cards, letters and phone calls. I have had 199 phone calls in the past three days from people who say, "Can you not make the government keep its promise and deliver the four per cent that it promised?" I have a lot of heartrending letters from people who have an affordability problem. Today they are spending their food money on rent because they cannot afford to pay the rent they are being charged now.

Whatever else has been said about Bill 51, there is one thing that should be obvious to every member of this Legislature: Bill 51 will cause rents to go up. There is no escaping that. There has been a lot of fancy dancing by government shooters to try to disguise the fact that rents will go up, but it seems to me that if a government proposes legislation that is going to raise the guideline from a four per cent promise to a 5.2 per cent formula, that is 1.2 per cent more.

16:10

There are some other neat features in this bill that have never appeared in rent review legislation before. Let me describe a couple of them. If I am your landlord, Mr. Speaker, and I decide that you are a lovely tenant and that in 1987 I will not raise your rent by the guideline, I can say to you: "Mr. Speaker, I will not raise your rent this year. I could raise it 5.2 per cent, but I am not going to."

Guess what? In 1988, I can say to you: "I do not like you quite so much this year. I am going to raise your rent by this year's guideline and last year's guideline. How do you like that?" In 1987 you do not get an increase, but in 1988 your increase might be 10.4 per cent. That may be an economic eviction for you, Mr. Speaker, and off you go.

That is one of the wonderful features of Bill 51, a surprise feature. People will be very surprised when, three years down the road, if their landlord did not increase their rent once, all of a sudden he increases it fourfold. Four guidelines in one year. Will that not be marvellous? It can all happen with this terrific Bill 51; it is an amazing thing.

I have heard from people all across the province. I have heard from people from places I did not even know existed. I am glad I now know they do exist. I have heard from Ancaster, Blenheim, Brantford, Hamilton, London, North Bay, Oshawa, Ottawa, Peterborough, Stoney Creek, Tecumseh, Thunder Bay, Tilbury and Windsor, and I have heard from most of the ridings in Metropolitan Toronto.

I have a letter here from Weston in which a woman says: "The majority of my income is derived from pensions, the old age and Canada pensions. I feel that any rent increases should be in line with the inflation rate and that a set portion of the increase should be set aside for proper maintenance of the rental property."

Many of the phone calls I received were from people who were in tears. My staff were often in tears listening to the phone calls. A women who is 81 years of age and partially disabled cannot afford her rent. A woman and her daughter living in a one-bedroom apartment, both on fixed disability pensions, were crying on the phone. They will have to leave if the rent goes up by more than four per cent and they are worried sick. There is an 81-year-old man, also from Toronto, who is recuperating from a stroke. The landlord increased his rent by $241, but he is on a pension and cannot afford it.

The irony of this whole thing is that it has never been demonstrated that the landlords needed any more than four per cent. I offered a formula that preserved every feature and every thrust of the formula the government advanced. That is the residential complex cost index formula. The RCCI formula has three basic parts: a multiplier, an adder and an index.

I offered a formula with a multiplier, an adder and the same index which would have created a rent increase for 1987 of 3.89 per cent. That increase would have covered the inflationary cost that landlords can expect to bear in 1987. Instead, the Liberals and the Conservatives are supporting a 5.2 per cent guideline, 1.2 per cent more than the promise made by the government, more than inflation and more than one per cent higher than is needed by landlords to cover their costs.

For those who feel 1.2 per cent is not a big deal and those who are willing to disregard the criticisms of methodology and simplicity, 1.2 per cent more, given the size of the rent bill in Ontario, compounded and accumulated comes to $1.4 billion in five years that tenants will dig out of their pockets and put into landlords' pockets. That is a large amount of money, and there is nothing in this bill that requires landlords to do anything other than what they are already required to do to justify receiving that additional money. A landlord is already required to maintain the property in good condition. Landlords do not do so, quite often, but they are required to do so. Why should a tenant dig into his or her pocket for money to buy a service he or she has already paid for? That is precisely what this government is suggesting.

I have spoken at length about the defects of Bill 51. I know some of my colleagues would like to get in on this debate. I am going to wrap up by making a couple of general comments.

I want to issue some alerts to tenants in Ontario. I want to issue an illegal rent alert, because Bill 51 is going to make it harder for tenants to get back the illegal rents they have paid. It is ironic. Bill 51 will allow tenants to know they have paid an illegal rent, but it will not allow them to get it back.

To be more precise, because I like to be precise, it does not allow them to get it back before August 1, 1985. There could be 10 years of illegal rent, but they cannot get that back as long as the landlord fesses up and registers. That is an interesting kind of crime holiday. If tenants move fast they can get their illegal rent back under the old bill; and they will get more money, so I hope they move fast.

I want to issue a chronically depressed rent alert. When this bill passes, there will be a new feature. It is a new mythology in Ontario: it is called chronically depressed rent. A landlord can go and apply to get relief as a chronically depressed landlord. If the application is successful, the landlord can add an additional two per cent on the rent each year until the landlord catches up. Under extraordinary pressure, the Minister of Housing brought in an amendment to give the tenants in those buildings a little bit of dough to help them bear the pain of this extra two per cent.

But there is a very scary part of this bill. Subsection 88(3) says to landlords who may be -- no, it is not. Goodness gracious. What happened? They must have changed the numbers here. Yes, they changed them. It happens when they reprint these bills afterwards. It is now section 91 somewhere. Never mind; I will figure it out.

What happens here is that if a unit becomes vacant or if the tenant agrees in writing, the landlord can fast-track this; in other words, the unit can go to market immediately. I attempted to amend this; my amendments failed. This will offer a wonderful opportunity for landlords to coerce people. People will be evicted. If a landlord can empty out the whole building, he does not have to go two per cent a year; he can go immediately to market.

That is a terribly scary situation. I have visions of very large people appearing at the doors of tenants in Ontario and saying, "It is time to leave." I have visions of very large people appearing at doors and saying: "Sign this paper, kid. If you do not sign, you are going to leave." Yes, there is a little safeguard built in: the minister has to approve these notes that tenants are going to send him, which say, "I really am agreeing to have my rent go shooting up and this is of my own free will, Minister." The minister will say "Oh, that is good," and check it off.

16:20

There is a real possibility of coercion and that is why it is necessary to have a chronically depressed rent alert. I hope we can find the 20,000 units full of tenants who are going to be subject to this coercion. I hope they will get in touch with their members and that their members will want to protect them.

The big danger in all this is that Bill 51 gives extraordinary comfort to those who would see rent controls disappear. It gives extraordinary comfort to the Fair Rental Policy Organization, which is beside itself with glee that this Legislature is going to pass this bill. They invited the leader of the official opposition to their annual general meeting. He dangled before their tantalized eyes an offer that, if he were Premier, rent controls would disappear.

In this contest for the hearts and minds and wallets of the developers and landlords of Ontario, one has to wonder whether the Minister of Housing is going to match the offer of the leader of the official opposition. Will he match the next offer the leader of the official opposition made, which was, "Another thing I will do for you is get rid of the condominium conversion legislation." Is the Minister of Housing going to match that offer? If he is not going to match that offer, we should soon be seeing the legislation that is intended to replace Bill 11. The way things move around this place, Bill 11 is going to expire and we will not have seen anything from the government on a permanent policy to protect our existing housing stock.

It is a terrifying proposition for tenants in this province to contemplate that Bill 11 will expire. They will be carrying Bill 51 on their backs, if they still have a unit to live in, because this will create an affordability problem for many people in the province. Many people are going to face economic eviction because of the bill being brought forward by the Minister of Housing. His piddling attempts at a supply program will not be in time for the people who will be evicted economically because they cannot afford to pay the rents that landlords will be allowed under Bill 51. That is a shocking way to develop a housing policy and it is a shocking way for the Minister of Housing to say he is discharging his responsibility to tenants in Ontario.

New Democrats have stood up for tenants for a long time. We are not going to stop now. In fact, today is the beginning of our next campaign to get real protection for tenants in Ontario.

Mr. Philip: That was a great speech given previously.

I rise to speak on this bill. Let us make no mistakes about this bill. Bill 51 will cause rents to increase in this province. I do not think there is any argument about this by either the Conservatives or the Liberals who are responsible for the rent increases contained in the bill.

When the Liberals ran for office in the last election, they promised a four per cent guideline. When they signed the accord, they signed for a four per cent guideline. Now the Liberals, assisted by the Conservatives in this House, are breaking both promises, both covenants.

The rent-increase guideline proposed by the Liberals and the Conservatives is 37 per cent higher than the projected rate of inflation for next year. In 1977, the Liberals and the Conservatives also voted together under that minority government. They voted to make a two-class system of tenancy in this province. By voting against our amendments in 1977 and by excluding buildings occupied after January 1, 1976, the Liberals and the Conservatives opened up the kinds of abuses we have seen in this province with the buildings that have been built and occupied after 1976.

In my riding of Etobicoke, at least 50 per cent of the tenants are living in buildings that were constructed and occupied after January 1, 1976. I have had people come to me with increases as high as $200 a month and there was absolutely nothing that could be done, because they were not under any kind of rent review.

Now these buildings will be under a rent review system, but with a formula different from that applied to other buildings. Thus, while the government has finally bowed to the pressure of the tenants, the pressure of the New Democrats and the pressure of the public in putting these buildings under some kind of rent review, by the very formula and procedure outlined in this bill it is perpetuating a two-class system of tenancy in this province: those who are fortunate enough to live in buildings that were occupied before January 1, 1976, and those who, unfortunately, and often not to their knowledge until after they have moved in, are occupying units that were occupied after January 1, 1976.

The tenants of this province have told the government exactly what they think of that. I refer members to the latest edition of the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations publication called Tenants Bulletin. The headline reads, "Bill 51: Landlords 51, Tenants Zero." The tenants writing in this publication say:

"For over 10 years, the Liberals and Conservatives have combined their votes in the Legislature to let landlords of buildings built after 1975 raise their rents as much and as often as they like. The results have been exorbitant rents and insecurity for tens of thousands of tenants in Ontario.

"Finally, in order to form the government, the Liberals promised to bring those tenants under protection of rent review. But Bill 51 does not bring these buildings under the same rent review system as older buildings. It builds in a large margin of profit on top of the other rent increases, so the legal rents will be so high many landlords will charge much less until they want a tenant to move out.

"This system is little better than no rent review at all and is not what was promised in the accord by the Liberals. We want all buildings brought under the same rent review system. There is no reason for treating post-1975 buildings any differently than any other buildings."

Thus, we have the same coalition perpetuated. The same coalition that voted for the landlords in 1975 and voted for the landlords and against the tenants in 1977 has voted in the same way in this bill. We see, as my colleague has pointed out, that of 57 amendments our party posed on behalf of the tenants, the Conservatives voted with the Liberals to defeat 51 of those. That is the coalition in this House: the Liberals, the Conservatives and the landlords on one side, the tenants and the New Democrats on the other.

We welcome the fact that costs no longer borne will no longer be passed on to tenants. It strikes me as ironic that the Conservatives stand up in this House and welcome that change when, in fact, I have asked for that change time and again during the past 11½ years, have presented private member's bills and have posed amendments as our party's housing critic, at that time, and the Conservative government invariably voted against them and stopped that kind of change, in the same way it voted against any kind of demolition controls, which at least the Liberals at that time were in favour of.

For many years I have argued that there should be proper legislation to ensure that buildings would be kept in a satisfactory state of repair. I proposed some very concrete amendments, as did my colleagues, amendments that we suggested should be made to the Planning Act to give municipalities the kind of teeth that were necessary to force those landlords who did not comply to bring their buildings quickly up to standard.

This bill makes some attempts to correct that problem, but if we look at the amendments proposed in this bill, we wonder about how vague they are and whether they will be enforceable and effective. Time will tell. We will certainly be monitoring this and trying to work with it.

16:30

The government proposes certain rent-supplement procedures in this bill. I had the honour not so many years ago of chairing an inquiry into housing conducted by the standing committee on administration of justice. I find it interesting that the Liberal members joined the New Democrats on the committee in a report which condemned as fiscally irresponsible some of the very proposals contained in this bill. We made other proposals in our report which we felt would be more fiscally responsible and more effective in delivering affordable housing in Ontario.

If we look at what is done in terms of dealing with illegal rents, at long last the government has moved in this direction. What I find offensive in the setting up of the registry is that it gives an amnesty to those landlords who, over the years, have been raising rents illegally. I find that the rent registry will stop future illegal rent increases, but amazingly, it gives an amnesty to those who have broken the law during the past 10 years.

When I had various conversations with Mr. Green, who manages the Residential Tenancy Commission office for Etobicoke and York, he told me over and over again, "We know the landlords create illegal rents and we know they do it over and over again, but there is little we can do about it." It has taken 11 years. Indeed, when I brought the matter to the attention of the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, a Conservative member who is now heading the Workers' Compensation Board of Ontario, he understood what the problem was. His problem was a fellow by the name of Claude Bennett in the Ministry of Housing and an intransigent cabinet that would not deal with the problem. I find it somewhat hypocritical that the Conservatives are now jumping on the bandwagon and saying they are going to stop illegal rents.

They are the ones who created the problem in the first place. They could have stopped it 11 years ago, in 1975, but they refused to act, because the Minister of Housing wanted to protect the landlords and refused to co-operate with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who simply could not get it through the cabinet. The Conservative members who are former cabinet ministers know what I am speaking of is the truth. I dare them to stand up and say otherwise.

There is an affordability problem in rental accommodation. Yet we see the government's attempts in this regard to be abysmal. The convert-to-rent program is so terrible, so absolutely deplorable, that the Provincial Auditor is currently investigating the program and the standing committee on public accounts will be holding hearings and looking into it.

The tenants of Ontario have told the Liberal government what they think of this Liberal government betrayal. In its latest publication, the federation states: "In the accord, the Liberals and the NDP agreed to set the rent increase guideline at four per cent. This guideline applies to about 80 per cent of the tenants each year, tenants whose landlords cannot justify a higher increase at rent review. But instead of keeping this simple promise, the Liberals have developed a complicated formula, making the guideline over five per cent next year. This formula gives landlords rent increases to cover the average increase in their costs and then adds two per cent on top of that. The government and its experts cannot justify this two per cent bonus but refused to amend it and to keep the Liberal government's promise."

In a very concrete way, I want to tell members of the kind of mail I have been getting. I will read just part of one letter to show them the kinds of problems people out there are facing in my riding. This comes from a lady who lives at 277 Kipling Avenue, which is a high-rise building built after January 1, 1976. It is certainly not a luxurious building. The letter reads:

"The situation in Etobicoke, as in other areas of the city, is in an absolute desperate position. I have been looking now for two solid months for a place for my husband and myself which is clean and affordable. I just cannot come up with the $700 and upwards for the rent these apartment owners are asking. My husband and I are both employed, although his job is hardly earth-shattering as far as salary goes, and to find something which can be affordable, without robbing Peter to pay Paul as far as my expenses go, is almost impossible."

That is the type of situation in which many people find themselves in this province. This bill does not deal with that problem. This bill is a breaking of the promise that the Liberals made during the election. I trust the tenants in Ontario will tell the Liberals exactly what they think of the bill, not just in their publication as they have here but also in the next election.

Ms. Bryden: We have been waiting for the reform of rent review for many years. The Progressive Conservative government hoped it would go away, and just recently the leader of the Progressive Conservative opposition said he really did not want to keep rent control but he was forced to because there was such a very low vacancy rate -- less than half of one per cent -- in the Metro area. His heart is not in supporting this bill, but he appears ready to settle for it with the Liberals, even though it is a very flawed bill.

We did get some rent reform as a result of the accord between the New Democratic Party and the Liberals that made the change of government possible 18 months ago. We got a reduction in the ceiling from six per cent to four per cent, because that was an election promise and because the accord was an essential part of the process of changing the government, but Bill 51 is another kettle of fish.

It scuttles the four per cent ceiling in favour of a very complicated formula that will produce a guideline of 5.2 per cent, but this is not what will be paid by all tenants. As a result of these complicated guidelines, some tenants will pay increases of up to 15 per cent because of the more generous rent review procedures.

Tenant income last year increased by about 3.5 per cent. The people hit the hardest will be low-income tenants occupying older buildings, particularly buildings in which landlords can claim an extra two per cent on the guideline if they can show that rents in the neighbouring buildings are higher than theirs. This happens even if that landlord is already making a profit. This will hit the people who are forced into these older buildings because of the shortage of affordable housing generally. Bill 51 will not produce one new affordable apartment unit. It will give landlords substantial additional income but that income will all go into luxury housing or condominiums or into increasing the profit of the landlords.

This bill is supposed to be the result of an agreement between landlords and tenants worked out under the Rent Review Advisory Committee set up by the government. Tenants sat on it only as individuals and it was the same with landlords. They were given an equal number of seats on it, but the recommendations that came out of this advisory committee have been resoundingly rejected by most organizations of tenants, particularly by the Federation of Metro Tenants' Associations and the Federation of Ontario Tenants Associations.

16:40

It is not a collective agreement between landlords and tenants, although that is perhaps a stage that we should ultimately develop. Tenants' associations would bargain with their landlords and have some clout, as trade unions have, in seeing that fair agreements and fair rents are charged.

I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that in my riding there are 2,500 tenants in our largest apartment complex, namely, Main Square, at Danforth and Main. These tenants have paid increases of 10 per cent or more over the past two or three years. How has this happened with a four per cent ceiling? It happened because this building is financed with mortgage money from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., the federal housing agency, which refuses to abide by Ontario rent guidelines.

This bill continues a clause that was put in by the Progressive Conservative government in 1977, declaring buildings owned, operated or financed by CMHC exempt from rent controls. While CMHC may argue that the province cannot bind a federal government agency, the limited-dividend buildings for which CMHC provides mortgage money are covered. Tenants in all CMHC-financed buildings should be treated the same. In fact, all tenants in Ontario should be treated the same. There should not be a distinction between those in federally controlled and provincially controlled buildings.

The government has brought in some improvements in past legislation. These were improvements we and the tenants' associations had been requesting of the previous Conservative government for years. We got stonewalled. The improvements include a rent registry -- long overdue -- but as my colleagues have said, there is no retroactive adjustment on illegal rents before August 1, 1985.

The establishment of a residential rental standards board is again an effort to say we are going to do something about maintenance, but we all know landlords pay no attention to the obligation they have right now to provide adequate maintenance.

The extension of rent review to buildings built after 1975 is a good step, but again, they should be treated the same as other buildings. The end of the $750 cutoff is something we have long looked for.

These are points we have requested for many years. The question is, are these improvements sufficient to justify supporting this bill, or should the government go back to the drawing board and produce a bill that has real protection for tenants?

Mr. McClellan: I do not mean to speak for more than five minutes, but as one of a succession of former housing critics for the New Democratic Party who are taking part in the debate this afternoon, I want to express once again on behalf of our party our deep disappointment that the Minister of Housing and the Liberal government have failed to seize an opportunity finally to bring forward a piece of tenant protection legislation that would have solved the problems that have been festering for the past 10 years.

The government has failed to do that because it has done an extraordinary thing, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate this. It has allowed the landlords and the development industry to come back to the inner sanctums of government and once again write housing policy and housing legislation for the government of Ontario.

For the first time in 10 years, the development industry has been in the front offices of the ministry, actually developing and even writing policy for the government of Ontario. They had been frozen out of that process since 1976 and the government has brought them back in. We see the results in front of us in Bill 51.

The details of the bill have been dwelt on by my colleagues, and I will not repeat our concerns, except to say I am amazed that the new Liberal government bought hook, line and sinker the line of the real estate development industry. That line has been the same since 1976, namely, that rent control has caused a crisis of housing supply and that the private sector will not re-enter the market for affordable rental housing unless rent control is removed, developers are permitted to make increased profits and the profits are reinvested in the housing industry and the construction of new rental housing.

There is only one problem with this argument that the government has swallowed. It is complete economic bunk. I am sure in his heart of hearts even the minister understands that what he has done in Bill 51 by allowing landlords to raise rents and to make a bigger return, not on investment but on their properties, increased profits, is simply to swallow the propaganda.

As surely as I am standing here today, that will not produce more affordable rental accommodation. The private sector abandoned that market years before rent control was introduced in Ontario. I worked at the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto in the late 1960s and early 1970s. For our sins, we documented the crisis in housing supply in the city of Toronto and other major urban centres in Ontario at that time.

There was a crisis of supply in the late 1960s and early 1970s which forced a reactionary Conservative government to bring in rent control legislation. The supply crisis is a reality of the industry, which cannot profitably invest in affordable rental accommodation and make the kind of profits that justify those investments.

That situation was true in the 1960s and the 1970s before we introduced rent control and it will continue to be true even after the government has allowed landlords to enhance their profit margins at the expense of tenants. They will no more invest in affordable rental housing than they will fly to the moon. They will take their profits and reinvest them in all kinds of enterprises. If the money does end up in the housing sector, it will be in the form of luxury accommodation.

I have listened to government officials say: "Yes, but the trickle-down theory will apply. All the people who are living in moderately priced apartments will move up to the luxury condos and vacate the other places. The marvellous trickle-down theory will trickle down affordable housing on the majority of people." Of course, that will not happen.

The government will find that tenants will suffer, that the supply crisis will continue and that the only solution to the housing supply crisis lies in an expansion of its nonprofit housing development program, which needs to be expanded in a major way to build the houses our people need, not just 2,000 or 3,000 units a year, but a major expansion of this program now that the basic structure of the program is in place.

16:50

Members of the government will find this issue has not gone away and it will not go away. They have failed to understand that rent review and rent control are not related to the question of housing supply as they and their Progressive Conservative allies like to pretend. It is a matter of a basic right: the basic economic right of tenants to be protected against the threat of economic eviction from their homes. That is what rent review is all about.

The minister has failed to understand that. He has failed to enshrine that principle in this bill, and I regret to tell him we cannot support it.

Mr. McFadden: I rise at this time to raise some questions about Bill 51 and two or three of the provisions contained in the bill, as amended. While I feel this bill brings a number of useful changes to the area of rent review in Ontario, I have some major concerns and real objections to a couple of its provisions.

The first objection I have is to the RCCI formula. During recent months, as this bill was wending its way through the consideration of this House and as the RCCI and BOCI concepts were discussed in the House throughout question period and elsewhere, I found to be obscure and confusing the answers of the minister concerning how this formula will work and how rental increases will be established in the future.

In recent months, I have had the opportunity to meet with tenants from my riding and from areas outside my riding to talk about the provisions of this bill. I sat down with them and provided them with copies of the bill to get their concerns about the legislation and any questions they might have. One of the things that came up time and again was concern about the RCCI formula, how it would work, the impact it would have on the tenants and the increases in rent that would be allowed under this legislation.

There was tremendous anxiety expressed to me about how this formula would work, who would be hurt, who would be helped and what it really means. I was not able to answer the questions, because this index is going to be established annually by the minister by regulation. We do not know precisely how the formula will be dealt with in the future. We do not know how the various weightings taken into account by the formula will be handled. We will not know from one time to another who the minister of the day will be and how that minister might treat this index. We do not know how the rights and the positions of the tenants or the landlords are going to be affected.

This is not a matter that should be left to regulation passed by cabinet on recommendation of a minister, because it affects one of the most important ingredients of people's lives: their housing and housing costs. My submission is that this should not be left to a regulation made by the minister in the secrecy of his ministry and of the Cabinet Office. I feel the system in effect to date, where there was disclosure of the percentage and it was discussed in this House, was fair and more open.

I do not support the idea of establishing rent across this province by government regulation, using some index that can be changed from time to time at the whim of a government. There is tremendous anxiety throughout this province on the part of tenants about what this means and what is the significance of the RCCI approach. From what I have heard, I am satisfied the tenants have legitimate concerns.

The way this act is worded, the generality in relation to the index and the way things can be set by regulation, does not in any way alleviate my concerns about what tenants and landlords will face in the future. I cannot assure any tenant or landlord about what will be allowed in terms of rent in the future. I am opposed to allowing a government to have that kind of power to use regulation. I suggest the tenants throughout Ontario are at risk, in view of the way in which the RCCI formula is going to be handled by the minister in the future.

The second area I have concern about is the way the review of rent is going to be handled. Tenant leaders to whom I have spoken and ordinary tenants have real concerns that they will not have a hearing in the first instance. When a rent increase is sought in excess of what the government will permit by regulation under RCCI, there will be an administrative process set up, during which a bureaucrat will make a decision on what the rent increase will be, after consulting with the landlords and tenants in whatever fashion he may choose. Here again, we have the bureaucracy deciding. The bureaucracy is essentially going to decide on RCCI, and now it will be deciding in an administrative fashion what increases will be allowed over and above the formula.

I have found tenants with whom I have dealt are very concerned about being denied the right of a hearing in the first instance. All this will achieve is that everybody will go to an appeal. Instead of somehow having everything simplified and everybody quite happy to deal with the bureaucrat and to have him set the rent increase, the reverse will happen. We are going to find that the tenant organizations will simply keep appealing. Increased friction will develop among the Ministry of Housing, the bureaucracy created to deal with this and tenants throughout the province.

The current process allowed for natural justice in the sense that tenants who were unhappy could go before a hearing, they could make their arguments in an open fashion and then a decision would be reached. If either the landlord or tenant disagreed with that decision, he or she could go on to an appeal.

17:00

I question the advisability of removing the right of tenants to a hearing in the first instance. I see no objection to a situation where the Ministry of Housing and its bureaucrats could work more closely with tenants or landlords to iron out disputes and try to settle differences that might arise over the amount of a proposed rent increase, maintenance standards or anything else. I see nothing wrong with trying to reach settlements amicably, but there is something fundamentally wrong when such an important matter as rent essentially can be decided behind closed doors by a bureaucrat in the Ministry of Housing.

Based on the evidence I have secured from talks with tenants, I submit that all we are going to have is a jam-up before the Rent Review Hearings Board because of the number and volume of appeals tenants are going to be seeking because of their unhappiness with the legislation and the bureaucratic fashion in which it will be dealt with.

On reflection, I am surprised the government allowed itself to fall into this kind of trap. The amount of heat that will be generated around these bureaucrats who are going to be setting the rents and deciding between landlords and tenants is going to be very intense in the months and years to come. The hearings allowed people to show up and raise their concerns in an open forum. If we think that somehow this is all going to go quietly away and a lot of people are simply going to put in their letters and accept what some bureaucrat says, some ruling that may take place behind closed doors, if we expect this is going to produce peace and harmony, I suggest the government is deluding itself on this matter. That is not going to occur.

People should have the right to a hearing in the first instance. If either side is unhappy, it should move on to an appeal. That process is followed in one government tribunal after another. We do that with liquor and commercial licensing legislation; we do it across the board. We permit people to have a hearing in the first instance; we permit them to have an appeal. What we are saying here is: "No, you do not get a hearing in the first instance. You have to deal with the bureaucrat. The bureaucrat decides whatever he may wish. From there, sure, then you can get your hearing if you disagree." The cards should all be put on the table in a public hearing in the first instance.

There are other aspects of the bill that are useful. The ability of the minister to grant financial relief for tenants is going to be useful. I hope the rent registry system will deal with some problems that may have developed in rent charges across the province. I am supportive of the elimination of key money, which has turned into quite an abuse across the province and has denied a lot of people the ability to secure affordable housing.

In the long run, the way out of the shortage of housing and the kind of pressure that has been created in the rental market is to increase the supply of housing. We are caught in a very difficult conundrum in this province, but my concern on reading this legislation is that the RCCI formula will not lead to additional housing. It is only going to create anxiety on the part of tenants, and the denial of hearings in the first instance to tenants and landlords is also not going to help in securing additional housing.

One final thing with regard to the RCCI formula: It is my hope -- and this was the unanimous view of the tenant leaders in my riding -- that instead of RCCI and BOCI and all these other things, there should be a formula or an index established that would be well known to tenants and easily understood. The tenants in my riding, whose submission I very strongly supported, recommended that the fairest and most open index that should be followed is the consumer price index. It has some drawbacks, but at least tenants in Ontario would know through the year what they had to pay.

Now tenants are going to have to wait around, as are landlords, to determine the rental increase that will be allowed by bureaucratic fiat, by cabinet regulation. That adds a level of uncertainty and confusion, and potentially, the ability for arbitrary action, which I believe is unhealthy under provincial legislation.

While there are, as I mentioned, certain aspects to this bill which are good and supportable, the bill has some very serious defects that are going to hurt tenants in this province, defects that I think could have been dealt with in other ways. Therefore, I have some real questions about Bill 51 and its impact on tenants in this province and the usefulness it will have in creating the kind of housing we are going to need.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like to correct the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) and eliminate some of the fear he has. He mentioned that the RCCI is not in the act, but in regulation. It is not in regulation. If he looks at page 68, schedule A, it shows where to find it, in clause 71(1)(b). The member's concern can be allayed, because it is in the act. It can be changed only by amending the act, not by cabinet.

Mr. Reville: I want to assure the member from Eglinton that what the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) said to him is incorrect.

Mr. McFadden: I am glad the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) brought that to my attention because that is exactly what I was about to say. Obviously the minister has not read schedule A of his bill, Bill 51, page 68. It says:

"The formula for calculating the residential complex cost index for the purpose of clause 71(1)(b) is the greater of, (a) two per cent; or (b) two per cent plus 2/3 of the percentage increase in the three-year moving average of the building operating cost index, rounded to the nearest 1/10th of one per cent."

The minister should try to explain that to somebody. I will read on, since it is so clear. Maybe I should explain it to the minister. It says:

"The building operating cost index shall be constructed in accordance with the weighting and components set out in the prescribed table, with the weighting adjusted annually in relation to changes, based on a three-year moving average, in the components."

Is that clear to everyone? What nonsense. Who is setting the table? The table is not being set by this House; it is being set by the minister by regulation. The three-year moving average and all these components are not being set by this House; it is not a known component. It is being set by regulation by cabinet.

It is ridiculous to say I have misrepresented this. The minister well knows that while we can read this and we can see what it says on the paper, it is very clear from just reading the paper that the BOCI formula and the moving average and the prescribed table and everything else is going to be set by cabinet by regulation. What the minister said and what the member for Riverdale pointed out and what a clear reading of schedule A indicates is exactly what I said earlier.

17:10

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I should inform the House we have just received word that the Leader of the Opposition has noticed the divisions in the Conservative caucus on this and has declared another free vote for the second day in a row. We expect the member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) to vote with the New Democratic Party this afternoon.

One of the things the member for Eglinton forgot to mention in all his expressions of concern for tenants is that he never did indicate whether he supported the amendment proposed by his Housing critic that rent review could be phased out in Ontario so that tenants would not know anything about their potential rent increases. The member for Eglinton might like to tell us his view on the position of his Housing critic and whether he supports a phasing out of rent review.

That Conservative proposal, which was also put forward by the Liberal Party a few years ago, that when vacancy rates get above three or four per cent, rent review should be eliminated in any community, would have meant that in my community a few years ago during the recession, when vacancy rates were seven per cent, rent review would have been completely eliminated, and now that the economy has turned around and our vacancy rate is 0.4 per cent, we would have no rent review in Windsor. That would satisfy the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and many of the Liberals who also do not support rent review, but it would have left all the tenants in Windsor and Essex completely unprotected under any piece of legislation.

It is nice to see the fence the Conservative Party has tried to straddle. I guess it is the same fence the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and the Liberal Party have attempted to straddle in this piece of legislation.

Many of the tenants in my riding are in post-1976 buildings, and they believed the Liberal Party when it changed its long-held position opposing extension of rent review; they believed the Liberal Party that it was going to be a four per cent guideline. The tenants in Amherstburg, in the riding of the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) -- and there are a lot of post-1976 buildings in Amherstburg -- believed what their local member said, that the guideline was going to be four per cent.

The government did not deliver on its commitment, and the 5.2 per cent is misleading in itself, as has been outlined by our Housing critic, when we add in all the other percentages. I do not pretend to understand this entire formula, and after hearing some of it read to us again by the member for Eglinton, I am not sure I want to understand it. What it boils down to for the tenants in post-1976 buildings in my riding is that they could get suckered with 15 per cent and 20 per cent increases in their rent under the guise of rent review or protection for tenants.

Unfortunately, a lot of tenants will not understand how bad this bill is until after the next provincial election; obviously, that was one of the public relations moves on the part of this government. It passes a piece of rent review legislation and tells the tenants of this province it is improving the system and it is going to protect post-1976 tenants. When they find out what the system is like, they will understand how badly treated they have been by the Liberal Party of this province.

Mr. Mancini: What nonsense.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: It is not nonsense. The member for Essex South should wait until the tenants in Amherstburg find out how they have been screwed under this bill.

The section in this legislation dealing with costs no longer borne gives me a great deal of concern, because it does not offer protection. When capital costs have been recovered by a landlord, they should be pulled out of the rent; that is all there is to it. He gets a return on the investment. He gets 12 per cent or 11 per cent, depending on the going percentage for interest rates, but in the government's bill it is not doing that.

Ms. Caplan: It does that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: No, it does not. He has to put more capital into the building, and then there is a certain percentage of it that is taken off; so if he puts a fridge or a stove in an apartment unit, the only time costs no longer borne kicks in is when he replaces that fridge or stove.

The reality is that this bill is a great disappointment, not only to this caucus but also to the tenants of this province. By going to the tenants and telling them what both the Liberals and the Conservatives have done to them today by passing this bill, we will be able to get the message through more clearly than ever before that, when the bottom line is struck, Liberals and Conservatives will always be on the side of the landlords and the big developers of this province, and New Democratic Party MPPs and our party will always be on the side of tenants.

Mr. McFadden: The member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) made some unkind cuts about my leader and what was said by our Housing critic.

With regard to the vacancy rate and that point of view, it is clearly in the best interest of tenants in Ontario to have vacancy rates that would allow for a choice for tenants. I do not think anybody is questioning that.

The member for Wellington South (Mr. Ferraro) has just joined our caucus. He has had enough over there and has decided to join us here today.

Mr. Philip: He fits right in.

Mr. McClellan: Birds of a feather.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McFadden: Now he is sitting in the aisle. He cannot make up his mind.

The Deputy Speaker: Carry on.

Mr. McFadden: I am sorry to be diverted from this matter.

The objective of our party is to work towards a situation where there would be a sufficient supply of housing and a sufficient vacancy rate that rent review would potentially not be needed everywhere in Ontario. In the areas it is needed, it would have to be in place. Right now in Toronto, there is virtually no vacancy rate. There are some areas of Ontario that have a greater vacancy rate than that, but Toronto has virtually a zero vacancy rate. In that circumstance, rent review is essential and socially necessary.

From the point of view of our party, and I hope from the point of view of all members, there is a need for additional supply. We hope to have no need for rent control. As of now, we certainly do.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My home community is a perfect example of what the Tory and Liberal policies as enunciated a few years ago would have done. Our vacancy rate went up to seven per cent. We would have no rent control in Windsor right now, but instead we have a vacancy rate of 0.4 per cent. The play in the economy has a lot to do with it.

When the auto industry goes down, our vacancy rate goes way up because people move out of the community. When the auto industry booms, the vacancy rate goes down to virtually zero. Landlords would exploit that badly, as they exploited the lack of controls in the post-1976 buildings. It is fine for the member for Eglinton to sit on the fence and say he supports his critic and supports his tenants, but not really explain his position. He cannot have it both ways. It does not work. He is living in technicolour.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to add a few words to those of my colleague. Before redistribution, my riding had a population of about 35 per cent tenants. After redistribution, it will be much closer to 50 per cent.

For years, the area has had a problem with landlords who have abused the past legislation. A large number of illegal rents were being paid. Some scandalously famous cases have been taken to the superior courts by some of the worst landlords in Ontario. In the riding are some new buildings whose tenants have been living with incredibly high escalating rents over the past number of years; as well, there is a lot of older, affordable housing stock in the Eglinton Avenue area.

The fight in 1975 and the election around the need for rent review struck a responsive cord in my riding. It was one of the reasons the member at that time, Stephen Lewis, held the seat by a 10,000-vote plurality. There was hope raised during the early period of that minority government that the needs of tenants were being looked after, but when then Premier, Mr. Davis, came to an early election, in 1977, without having yet achieved the full protection of tenants, they saw through his charade and returned us very strongly. Again, rent review was an important issue.

17:20

In 1981, although posturing by the then Premier was at its height in terms of his belief in rent review, and the Tory party did not believe in such things as having the occupancy rate affect whether this basic right for tenants should be there, we still managed to convince a large majority of the tenants in the riding that their best interests were served by a New Democrat.

After the 1985 election, when the accord was struck and we were able to show tenants in my riding what promises we had been able to eke out of the new Liberal government, there was great rejoicing among the tenants of all the various kinds of buildings in my riding, whether they were new buildings, old buildings with scandalous and disreputable landlords or housing stock in need of major refurbishing. They thought a written guarantee of four per cent was something out of which not even politicians could squirm.

I want the minister and the government to know that I have been keeping my tenants well acquainted with the changes in that agreement made by the Liberal government under the supposed guise of a binding, behind-the-scenes negotiating process between some tenants and landlords of Ontario and with the fact that therefore a written agreement the government had made publicly with this party could be as seriously amended as the government has now changed it.

We have had several meetings in the riding, trying to explain the new formula. Nobody understands it. This means it is going to be on the side of landlords and their high-priced lawyers and very much against the interests of tenants. A clear means of being able to determine that, is just how understandable it is to the average tenant in Ontario.

The fact that the government would promote an amnesty for some of the landlords in my riding who have systematically broken the law during the past number of years is, in my view, reprehensible. I believe it is felt that way by many of my tenants. It may be, as the member for Windsor-Riverside says, that the negative impact of this legislation will not be felt by many tenants until after the next election is held.

It may be that it will take another election before this comes back to haunt the minister, but I can tell him that will not be the case in Scarborough West. In any of the ridings we now hold, or have great strength in, our message about what the government has done to tenants, how it has betrayed them, and its alliance with the landlords will be a message we will take very clearly to them and for which, I suggest, the government is going to pay dearly in the next election.

Mr. Laughren: I must say a few words about Bill 51 because of the surreal experience I had in chairing the committee that dealt with the bill. It was a surreal experience not simply because it was a large, long, complex bill with in the neighbourhood of 100 amendments -- I am not sure of the exact number now; we had difficulty keeping track -- but also because the staff of the Ministry of Housing at times added to the surreal quality of the experience. It was certainly a fun experience.

I must commend the Minister of Housing for the staff that surrounds him. I do not know whether he put them all in place or whether they were already there, but they were very helpful during the debate on the bill. As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Housing staff helped me to extend my knowledge base immeasurably during the debate on the bill.

When the public hearings were being held, it was a very clearly delineated debate. When people came before the committee, they were either absolutely for the bill or they were against the bill. The tenants invariably were against the bill. As chairman of the committee, of course, I was impartial. It was only after the whole experience was over that I became convinced the tenants were right.

Mr. Reville: It was not easy.

Mr. Laughren: No, it was not easy. I wrestled with it for a long time after the committee had adjourned its hearings and its clause-by-clause debate. I came to the conclusion that, despite the spellbinding oratory of that silver-tongued devil, the member for Sudbury, the member for Riverdale had convinced me that the tenants were not going to get the kind of protection to which they are not only entitled, but also have been promised.

If I go back a year and some to the accord that was signed by the minister's party and this party, I remember what it said about a control on rents. Even though my constituency will not be greatly affected by this legislation, it seems to me there is an obligation for a government or political party to honour its commitments. That is where the government has fallen so greatly short. The minister must feel somewhat funny having to bring forth and implement legislation that goes back on the government's word. That must be difficult to do and hard to justify.

I thought it was only fair I should let it be known that, after hearing the debate, the people involved should know who had convinced me, the member for Sudbury or the member for Riverdale. The member for Riverdale's arguments were incredibly persuasive.

It was a good experience, and I did appreciate the assistance from the Ministry of Housing staff and also the presence at the hearings of the Rent Review Advisory Committee people, some of whom are in the gallery today. They were most helpful to the committee during the hearings as well.

Mr. Grande: I want for a few brief moments to outline some of my concerns about Bill 51. My colleagues on this side of the House have mentioned over and over again the four per cent guideline and have asked whatever happened to it. We all know, the people, the public and the tenants in Ontario know, that the Tories were in agreement with the four per cent guideline, the Liberals were in agreement with the four per cent guideline and the New Democrats were in agreement with the four per cent guideline. It seems, however, that only one party is now in agreement with the four per cent guideline. The others for their expedient reasons have forgotten about it and have abandoned the tenants to the whim of the private marketplace.

That is one reason I am not happy with this bill. A second reason concerns the rent registry. If any party has made the case in this province for a rent registry, it is this party, and I am very proud of the battles that have been fought over the years. However, we need a rent registry that is meaningful for tenants, a rent registry that goes back to 1976, when rent review began in this province, and a rent registry that will not allow millions of dollars in illegal rents to remain in the pockets of the landlords, which is what this bill does, because the rent registry goes back only to July 1, 1985.

17:30

I want to talk about a case in one of the buildings in my riding of Oakwood. Forty per cent of the people in that riding are tenants and live in rental housing. We went before the Residential Tenancy Commission and discovered that four tenants in a building were paying illegal rents. We made the case before the rent review commissioner that, as a result of those four illegal rents, we wanted to get the records from the landlord back to 1976 to determine whether all the tenants in that building were paying illegal rents. The commissioner ordered the landlord to come back with the records. The landlord's representative came back at the next meeting and said: "We are sorry. We looked all over the place for the records but, unfortunately, we have not been able to locate them. We have lost them. All we can go back to is 1984."

As far as we were concerned, we had made what is called in law a prima facie case that illegal rents were being paid in that apartment building and that therefore the onus was upon the landlord to justify those base rents in that building. The commission decided in favour of the landlord, that the landlord need not. As a result of this bill, no landlord in this province is going to pay the money he has stolen from tenants for 10 or 11 years.

Those are two concerns, and I can go on with many other concerns that this bill has for me and particularly for the tenants of the riding of Oakwood. Therefore I will sit, having let the government know how concerned and uncomfortable I am about this bill. It is just too bad that the Tories and Liberals did not allow proper amendments to this bill to make it a good bill for tenants in this province.

Ms. E. J. Smith: It is my pleasure today to stand up on behalf of the government and address some of the comments of the members of the NDP and Conservative caucuses.

It has been an interesting committee to sit on, excellently chaired by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). I am glad he is better as a chairman than he is at reasoning out which side he should be on in the issue. We all enjoyed working with him and for him.

I see the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) has departed. Perhaps he will be back. I will address his confrères, who can carry back to him some of my comments. He seemed mostly to be upset at the high vacancy rate and the very slow start we had on the work of this government here. I welcome him back. I can say only that it may have seemed slow to him, but the people who were working so hard -- I know what intensity and effort they put into it -- were determined that this time they would do it right.

The only way we could have resolved this problem so well, and done it sooner, would have been if we had been elected to this government sooner. The most important part of what was done is that we did not simply pass a bill temporarily putting the rate at this or that. We created a process that will be ongoing, because we believed and still believe that the most important issue in this portion of the assured housing policy is to create a market builders will feel confident to enter. This required not just a short-term solution of a given percentage but the assurance that this was a process that would keep working. As it has worked until now, every time there is an election, people forget everything they have said and offer lower and lower rates as the solution to an election problem, rather than looking at the base problem, which is providing housing.

We are addressing a portion of the housing problem, not just the upper end of it, but it is just a portion, and we recognize this. The member for Sudbury was somewhat upset that we did not seem to be addressing the affordability program. I will mention some of the figures in that, but I say two things. The member for Sudbury said we currently have a 40,000-unit shortage. I agree we have a deplorable shortage of housing. I suggest it is the result of many years, and that is what we have been working to rectify.

In the affordable housing area alone, and the member talked of 40,000 units, we have put up funding towards 18,800 units in this period. We are indeed moving forward, not backward, and at an incredible rate. Let me quote for the member for Sudbury the support that was given in his community alone. In 1984, there were 15 units afforded there. In 1985, there were a miserable 28 units. In 1986, there were 253. I call that great progress and moving forward.

The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), along with the member for Sudbury, seemed to call into question that builders would ever get into this market. It is essential to us that we get builders into the market. If it were to be addressed only in the way the New Democratic Party suggests, the lack of housing would become such a huge cost to this province that every other social program would have to suffer. A government cannot be all things to all people. It has to prioritize. Taking the NDP's route to solving the housing problem would mean there was no money left for other social programs.

It is not a case of saying we will let the developers tell us what to do. We have said, quite correctly, we will get the developers in, sit them down with the tenants and come up with a solution. That is what happened. We talked to developers about a reasonable return on investment. We addressed that, because developers, like every other person in this room, including those in the NDP caucus, are not going to invest their money in something as troublesome as housing and tenants if they can put their money in the bank and get the same or a better return on the investment. That is a premise we accept.

In exchange for a reasonable profit, the tenants have got the things they were most interested in: a meaningful registry of rents which covers absolutely everything; other clauses such as costs no longer borne; and, most important to tenants, a maintenance board and maintenance standards. Nobody is mentioning that over there. The most important thing to the tenants was that they get their maintenance standards, and that is a part of the bill.

We did not listen to developers. We did not listen to tenants. We put the two together and asked them to work together.

As far as the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) is concerned, I liked his illustration of the bills and the fans. It was a very graphic illustration of what happened. We started with what we thought might be simple solutions and realized when we looked at the problem that it was too complex to be resolved in a meaningful way by simple solutions; so we took on the job of writing a more complicated bill with long-term solutions in it, recognizing that this and this alone would resolve it in the long run.

17:40

The member for Riverdale said we had more than 100 amendments. The House should be grateful to the members of the committee and the staff who worked so hard. If we had more than 100 amendments, it is because we expended that much work and effort in constantly improving the bill and hearing from each group as it came up with suggestions. We ended up with a bill that has 133 sections; so members can see how hard we worked in that period of time.

Mr. Wildman: It is too complex. Nobody understands it.

Ms. E. J. Smith: That is a different point.

These people worked night and day, and I commend them on the effort they put into those amendments that are now part of the bill.

We hear about broken promises and accords from many members of the New Democratic Party. Have members looked to see what is in the bill? They will see the figure of four per cent. Members should go over the record of what was said. We promised four per cent in the bill, and we have four per cent. We promised that rents of more than $750 would be included, and they have been. We promised post-1975 buildings would be included, and they have been. We promised a rent registry, and we have delivered. We promised a five per cent cap on building sales, and it is there in subsection 79(3). We promised a provision dealing with costs no longer borne, and we have it there.

Mr. Ferraro: And in the next election, you are going to get it.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. E. J. Smith: The four per cent is still in effect. It will change only slightly on April 1, 1987, and then will be eased in.

Mr. McClellan: On April Fool's Day.

Ms. E. J. Smith: It is also the day of one of our good saints. I cannot remember which one. We will make whoever it is the new saint of housing.

The change will then be eased in over one year, but even in April we are very close to the two-year accord time. They have had their four per cent. We recognize and everybody in the Conservative caucus recognizes that the simplistic solution was not that because it was not going to get us out of our drastic housing shortage.

The member for Eglinton (Mr. McFadden) expressed a great deal of concern about legalistic versus bureaucratic. I find this interesting. I have to say he would be leaning somewhat naturally towards a legalistic solution, just as doctors tend to treat disease rather than promote prevention. Time and again at the hearings, we saw people who had been reluctant to do anything about their rents, be they landlords or tenants, because they were thrown off by the formality of the process. All they could see is that they would have to hire expensive lawyers and go through this big legalistic process. What has been set up now is something people can go to and get help from without lawyers and costs. They can still go to a review. That right has not been taken from them. They have the same right to appeal as they did in the first place, but they have an option now to get assistance first.

If members think bureaucrats are nothing but unhelpful to the people who approach them, they had better be ready as members of the provincial parliament with a constituency staff to make sure the bureaucracy is helping. That is the responsibility of an MPP. Bureaucrats have been put there to help in the centres across Ontario. We know they will be needed because the bill is complicated, and that is why they will be there. Members must police those people to make sure they serve the tenants and landlords properly.

All the talk about business behind closed doors and secretiveness is completely lost on me. I cannot think of anything more open than this legislation. Right from the beginning, one of the most important things that was introduced, and it runs through the whole bill, is the right of the tenant to know and the right of everybody to understand.

We had a terrible case presented to us of people who went three years with no rent increase and then suddenly got it all in one year. In the first place, people will find out every year what their allowed rent is. They have an allowable rent. In the case cited, for some good reason, perhaps that they were exceptionally good tenants, the landlord did not change their rent. He was allowed to, but for whatever reason, they got through with no increase for two years, even though it was allowed. I do not find it a very pathetic case.

Not only that, but the information is given and made available to them at any time. Most especially the openness is there, which has never been there, that when people move into a new apartment, all they have to do is pick up the phone and ask, "What is the allowable rent on this unit?" It does not matter if they are new tenants or old tenants. The information remains the same.

Before I stop, I have to say I find it amazing that the party of unionism is attacking something that to me has a great resemblance to union-management negotiation. Here are two groups with what has always been interpreted as contrary aims: the landlord who is only going to make money and the tenant who is only going to make trouble for the landlord. This is the same sort of concept we used to have, and I hope do not now have, between union and management. The third party says union and management working together can make this country a good industrial country, and I believe landlords and tenants working together will resolve our housing problems.

We recognize and stress that this bill does not address the whole housing problem. This year, in recognition of this, we have funded almost 19,000 units and we will continue to recognize the need for social assistance in housing until this problem is resolved. Affordability must be addressed and will continue to be addressed by this party.

We recognize the bill is not perfect. There are things in it that probably will be re-examined as time goes on, but the process is set in place. The landlord and tenant groups will continue to meet together and review and recommend how the problems can be resolved. This is an ongoing process. I do not know how the NDP can oppose something that so completely resembles the management-union co-operation and balance that we have.

I look forward not just to a solution today in the short term, but in the long term, to improved relationships between landlords and tenants and the recognition on both sides that a good landlord makes for a good tenant and a good tenant makes for a good landlord.

Mr. Reville: As much as I enjoyed working with the member for London South, she has a lot to learn about unions. When a union representative negotiates a deal, it gets ratified by the membership. Tenants never ratified the deal made by their representatives. In fact, if tenants had a chance, they would fire those representatives.

Mr. Gordon: I would like to comment on what the member for London South said. We have had pretty good examples of how complicated life can be made for the citizens of Ontario. If we take the Workers' Compensation Board advisers who have been established in various communities, that has become a very complicated process, and we have workers backed up all over the place. If we take the new committee that has been set up, whereby workers go to a final board to get a decision, now they have to take lawyers with them, because it has become so complicated. I suggest that this bill is very complicated as well.

17:50

As the member for Sudbury, I worked very hard for the more-than-200 units that have come to Sudbury. The people of Sudbury are pleased that they have more rental housing and are going to inhabit those houses. I think the arguments of the member for London South at the end of today's debate have proven once again that this is, purely speaking, a rent review bill.

It is a case of where the government has spent more than a year gazing at its navel and has come up with no more affordable housing for the people of this province. As a matter of fact, the government even admitted in this House today that it had not reached the number of housing units it had established as the necessary objective. I think this just shows again that there has been too much time spent on matters which could have been passed by the Legislature more than a year ago.

We would all have acquiesced -- there were no problems with that -- and got on with the business of a crash program to supply housing for the residents and citizens of Ontario who need it. I ask the government to reconsider its navel gazing and get on with the building of housing in this province.

Mr. Taylor: I appreciate this opportunity to participate in this debate. I served on the standing committee on resources development while most of the presentations were made. I initially concluded that there seemed to be no one in support of the legislation, neither the landlords nor the tenants. As the hearings proceeded and as the presentations unfolded --

Mr. Sargent: Time.

Mr. Taylor: I thank the member. I see he is back in the House after the vote on the homosexuals.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Is this necessary?

Mr. Taylor: I want to talk to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) later too, but right now we are talking about housing. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of Housing. For him to sit there and persevere as he did in his good-natured way and to be truly understanding of the problems of both sides, I think we should all compliment the minister for that. He is deserving of it. I wondered whether the untiring, unending debate on this legislation was ever going to conclude.

My conviction is and has been for a long time that we have too much government control. There is a dire need for housing in this province. I invite the Minister of Housing and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) to join hands and review the legislation again, because there are too many roadblocks in Ontario which frustrate the building of houses, apartment buildings, condominiums and so on.

I think it is so essential to pursue that, to see whether the conditions, the imposts, the severe financial problems that young people face in trying to acquire a home are necessary. We see the expenses factored into the mortgage and the problems of financing this piece of legislation. I heard an estimate that it would take about $20 million per year to administer this piece of legislation. I would like to see the money, however much it is, put into assisting people with their mortgages and with the opportunity of buying homes. Directionally, as I see this legislation, it provides an umbrella, so to speak, within which the marketplace has some role. To some degree, the marketplace will be better able to operate within this legislation. In so far as that happens, it is good.

Our party is supporting the legislation in a directional sense. Nothing is perfect. Some of us would rather see the persons who need financial help for housing afforded that help, but not to handcuff the whole of Ontario. There are many communities in Ontario that do not need the type of restrictions and controls, the bureaucracy and the problems that result from rent control.

I invite the minister to keep this legislation under constant review, to have the open mind he has exhibited so well during this process, to look forward and never to forget the goal -- not the goal we seem to envy at the moment of being the second-largest landlord on the North American continent. Ontario is the second-largest landlord on the continent after New York City. I do not think that is a goal. It may be a goal for the socialists; they want to be the biggest, but in terms of this legislation, I suggest we should be trying to put the argument back into the private market.

The House divided on third reading of Bill 51, An Act to provide for the Regulation of Rents charged for Rental Units in Residential Complexes, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Bernier, Bradley, Brandt, Callahan, Caplan, Conway, Cordiano, Curling, Davis, Dean, Eakins, Elston, Eves, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Gordon, Guindon, Haggerty, Harris, Hart, Henderson, Kerrio, Knight, Kwinter, Lane, Mancini, Marland, McCague, McKessock, McLean, Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman;

O'Connor, Offer, Partington, Pierce, Poirier, Pollock, Polsinelli, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scott, Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Sweeney, Taylor, Van Horne, Villeneuve, Ward, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Fish, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Hayes, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Swart, Warner, Wildman.

Ayes 58; nays 24.

The House adjourned at 6:11 p.m.

3 décembre 1986