Journal des débats 1988-mai-02 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I would like to ask all members to join me in welcoming the next group of legislative pages to serve in the First Session of the 34th Parliament. They are:

Salma Bhaloo, Don Mills; Rebecca Brettingham, Burlington South; Tasha Brooks, Brant-Haldimand; Manuel Dignard, Prescott and Russell; Jeff Donovan, Fort William; Greg English, Hastings-Peterborough; Heather Evans, Waterloo North; Natalie Eves, Parry Sound; Sean Follis, Rainy River; Ian Haines, Kenora; Aron Halpern, Simcoe West; Mark Hanson, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Martha Harrison, Guelph; Rebecca Hill, Perth;

Larry MacDowell, St. Andrew-St. Patrick; Candace Maybin, Quinte; Daniel Mennill, London South; Scott Montague, Durham East; Dawn Morrisette, Algoma-Manitoulin; Pauline Rosenbaum, Hamilton West; Sunita Shah, Cornwall; Greg Splan, Grey; Mark Thompson, Carleton; and Allison Young, Peterborough.

Please join me in welcoming this group of pages.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AWARD PROGRAMS

Ms. Bryden: In Ontario, a great variety of recognition awards is given by the government to citizens who have made significant contributions to our province in a volunteer capacity.

As we all know, the costs of the award ceremonies and administration are all borne by the taxpayers of this province, but the awards have become a prerogative of the government in power. There is no legislation governing the awards, and the costs of each award are often not easily identified in the estimates. The opposition is seldom invited to make any of the presentations.

Since these are really provincial awards, I am suggesting we bring all award programs under the jurisdiction of the Legislative Assembly. The assembly should be given the power to review all existing award programs and to consider new ones. It should also establish criteria for eligibility, set up selection processes and plan award ceremonies with the assistance of assembly staff.

The supervision of the award programs should be delegated to a legislative committee with equal representation from each party. The program could then be truly called provincial awards honouring outstanding citizens.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Harris: History is being made today with the imposition of an eight per cent retail sales tax on the people of Ontario by the Peterson Liberals.

I rise and join with all consumers in condemning this bad, errant, vile, base, evil, gross, mean, wretched, grotty, measly, low, awful, worthless, shoddy, tacky, crummy, ropy, punk, pathetic, useless, faulty, flawed, mangled, bungled, scruffy, filthy, dirty, foul, fetid, rank, unsound, tainted, rotten, peccant, infected, poison, septic, diseased, depraved, vicious, villainous, wicked, heinous, shabby, unjust, scandalous, disgraceful, onerous, burdensome, annoying, hurtful, injurious, damaging, detrimental, wasting, consuming, destructive, pernicious, costly, disastrous, noxious, malignant, unhealthy, poisonous, dangerous, ominous, dire, puckish, impish, bloodthirsty, cruel, outrageous, harsh, intolerant, persecuting, monstrous, obnoxious, nasty, beastly, horrid, terrible, gruesome, grim, ghastly, awful, dreadful, putrid, stinking, sickening, revolting, vulgar, sordid, indecent, improper, shocking, reprehensible, horrendous, miserable, damnable, regressive, oppressive and unwarranted snake-in-the-grass molestation of the taxpaying public.

I intend to oppose this tax hike.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if it is in order to read the dictionary or not.

ROBOTS IN INDUSTRY

Mr. Tatham: Food for thought: Paul Christopher, writing in the Japanese Mind, talks about Toshio Iguchi, who makes plastic parts for toy watches for children. He used to employ four workers. They left his employment for more money, so Toshio now runs a one-man band with robots. He leased these robots from Japan Robot Lease. He could not afford to buy then for $45,000 each, but could lease one for as little as $750 per month. What is more, it gave him the assurance that he could freely trade his robots in for new and improved models as they come along. It is something to think about.

REGIONAL JUDICIAL CENTRES

Mr. Hampton: The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) recently received the report of the Zuber study on the courts of justice. One of the primary goals of the Zuber report was to bring justice and the courts closer to the people of Ontario. Following from this goal, the report recommended the creation of a number of regional judicial centres throughout Ontario. It has become apparent to residents of northern Ontario that there will be only one judicial centre for all of the community spread across northern Ontario. That judicial centre is to be located in Sudbury.

One wonders, when looking at this proposal, what the Attorney General’s ministry could be thinking of. Has anyone in the Attorney General’s office ever tried to travel, say, from Kenora to Sudbury? Have they experienced the fact that they have to change planes at least three and sometimes four times, or take a plane, then a bus, then a plane and then a bus? Have they ever thought about the difficulty of trying to move judges out of Sudbury into communities such as Dryden, Red Lake, Timmins, New Liskeard, Longlac, Marathon or Terrace Bay? The task would be almost impossible. Most of a judge’s time would be taken up in travel. Surely the Attorney General can do something better.

1340

RAPE CRISIS CENTRES

Mr. Jackson: Ontario’s rape crisis centres, like Ontario’s taxpayers, are in the red. Of the 20 sexual assault centres across the province, one has closed, two may close by the end of May and all are threatened because the government will not staff these centres.

The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) has responded to this problem by saying, “The government cannot give out money to everything that is a deserving cause.” After the single largest tax grab in Ontario’s history, Old Mother Hubbard is telling the victims of violent sexual assault and rape in Ontario that the cupboard is bare.

Let us look at some of the other deserving causes that the government has chosen to fund. The minister will spend $600,000 on an advertising blitz to heighten the awareness of the problems of sexual assault in Ontario but not a dime to spare to provide a stable staffing formula for the counselling of rape victims.

In Kingston, the Solicitor General will spend nothing for staffing the centre to counsel the victims of violent sexual assault while her colleague the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay) will spend $85,000 on their perpetrators.

This government has enough money. The minister has overseen many examples of mismanagement and abuse of taxpayers’ dollars.

Then, on Thursday last, the Liberals held a party on the fourth floor of the Legislature, where government property was damaged by a flying beer bottle.

This is an insatiable government excess, pure and simple. The real reason the Solicitor General cannot fund these deserving causes, I submit, is that she cannot manage her own $427-million budget.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Ballinger: Recently my Queen’s Park office received an article written by a constituent of mine, Wayne Newton, editor of the Uxbridge Times Journal, concerning biodegradable garbage bags.

The article states that corn farmers and our environment stand to benefit tremendously from a new technology brought to Canada by the St. Lawrence Starch Co., which is a very large operation in Uxbridge in my riding of Durham-York. This new technology is called Ecostar and is manufactured from corn. When added to polyethylene, it makes plastic garbage bags biodegradable.

Traditional garbage bags take up to 200 years to break down, or could last for ever. Because of this failure to break down, the garbage inside the bags does not decompose naturally, and consequently this contributes to the landfill problems we are currently experiencing throughout Ontario.

Durham region, recognizing the importance of this new technology, has recently adopted a policy whereby all its departments must use only these biodegradable garbage bags. It is the first municipality in Ontario to show the kind of leadership that it is going to take to help reduce Ontario’s landfill problems, and I personally want to salute Durham’s foresight.

When these new bags are left in soil or exposed to water, they disappear after about five years and are comparable in price to a leading premium brand. These bags also should be available shortly throughout Ontario in major retail outlets.

MENTAL HEALTH WEEK IN CANADA

Mr. Reville: Today is the start of Mental Health Week in Canada, and I think it behooves us here in Ontario to pause and reflect that the group which provides the most community mental health services is not a community agency, it is not the Ministry of Health: It is a group of private sector providers who go variously under the name of Mister Donut, Tim Horton Donuts and Joe’s Donuts.

For those members who are looking blank -- and I assume that is not their customary posture -- I would point out that the dearth of community mental health programming continues to be so bad in this city and in this province that many discharged psychiatric patients spend up to 24 hours a day in doughnut stores, where at least they have a warm place to be and something to eat for not very much money.

I think in this national Mental Health Week this House must resolve to do much better.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I respectfully ask for the unanimous consent of the House to say a few words about the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food’s centennial.

Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed to.

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FOOD CENTENNIAL

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As my honourable colleagues will know, this year marks the centennial of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I am proud to inform the House that 100 years ago, on May 1, 1888, the first separate department of government responsible for Ontario agriculture was formed. As we celebrate this milestone, I invite the people of Ontario to join us as we pay tribute to the men and women of this province, past and present, who have contributed to 100 years of agricultural achievement.

The agricultural industry of today remains a cornerstone of our economy, a foundation laid by the contributions of many determined and devoted Ontarians. Among these noted individuals are those who have served the people and the government of Ontario in the capacity of minister of agriculture and deputy minister of agriculture.

In commemorating this special day, we are indeed fortunate to have with us three former ministers of agriculture and deputy ministers in our presence. I ask my honourable colleagues in the House to acknowledge William A. Stewart, minister from 1961 to 1975; Lorne Henderson, minister from 1979 to 1982; and Dennis Timbrell, minister from 1982 to 1985. Our former deputy ministers in attendance are Everett Biggs, who served from 1961 to 1972; Gordon Bennett, deputy minister from 1975 to 1978; Ken Lantz, deputy minister from 1978 to 1981; and Duncan Allan, deputy minister from 1981 to 1983.

The work of these gentlemen for the good of the agricultural industry of Ontario is part of the legacy of the ministry which I am proud to serve, a legacy that began a century ago. On May 1, 1888, the first Minister of Agriculture was sworn in. Charles Drury, a farmer whose family began tilling the soil of Simcoe county shortly after 1819, was selected by Premier Oliver Mowat to head the first separate department of government responsible for agriculture. Charles Drury served as minister until 1890, but the Drury name was to be associated with the Ontario government once again when his son, Ernest C. Drury, served as Premier of Ontario from 1919 until 1923. With us today is Harold Drury, grandson of the first minister. He continued the Drury family tradition by farming the same land his grandfather did more than a century ago.

It is this kind of tradition and service to the agricultural community of Ontario that we are celebrating. We at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food felt it fitting and appropriate that this government acknowledge the significant contributions made to agriculture by members of the Ontario agricultural community during their careers.

During this centennial year, 100 special Centennial Awards will be presented to individuals and families representing farming, research, veterinary medicine and food processing in all areas of the province. The 100 recipients were chosen from more than 400 nominations by a panel consisting of former Deputy Minister of Agriculture Ken Lantz, a food industry representative, Murray Stewart of Canada Packers Inc., and the founder of Women for the Survival of Agriculture, Dianne Harkin.

I wish to table the 100 names of these citizens of Ontario who have made our Ontario agriculture and food sector one of the finest in the world and who have given us cause to celebrate 100 years of agricultural achievement and excellence.

1350

Mr. Wildman: On behalf of our party, I would like to join in congratulating the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on its 100th anniversary and also to say congratulations to the minister and to congratulate him also on his sartorial splendour today.

During the little ceremony we had, re-enacting the appointment of the first minister earlier today, the gentleman who was acting the part of the first minister, Mr. Drury, stated that “any person who had a good voice, a good set of teeth and a good head of hair would make it in politics.” All of us know that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) has a good voice. Not too many of us, perhaps, have checked his teeth lately, but he has a long way to go with regard to the good head of hair.

I would also like to join with the minister in welcoming the former ministers and deputy ministers today and the members of the Drury family. It was very interesting to hear Harold Drury explain the history of his family and its relationship to the agricultural community and state that his grandfather would have been very appreciative of the changes that have been made in agriculture and of the contribution made by the ministry to those changes over the last 100 years. But it was also interesting to hear Mr. Drury state that his grandfather probably would have been distressed at the amount of prime farm land that has gone into highways and buildings in southern Ontario.

It seems to me that the best tribute this government could make to 100 years of agriculture and to the anniversary of the ministry in this province would be to make a commitment to food land preservation in Ontario. If we could all agree to stop stalling and to establish food land preservation policies under the Planning Act, with deadlines for municipalities to include in their official plans, then we really would be paying tribute to Mr. Drury and to the men and women who have worked for 100 years in agriculture and in the ministry since the establishment of the department in 1888.

Mr. Villeneuve: On behalf of my party and my caucus, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to join with my colleagues to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the office of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I also want to add my congratulations to the 100 recipients of the OMAF Centennial Awards.

Agriculture in Ontario has come a long way since the pioneer days of subsistence farming, which started to change a century ago into our present system of diversified agriculture. Helping agriculture on that way have been a succession of able and dedicated ministers. While the ministry itself can trace its roots back to the Bureau of Agriculture and Arts and the Commissioner of Agriculture and Public Works established in 1868, the office of minister is 20 years younger than that.

The first minister, Charles Drury, represented the riding which is now very ably represented by my colleague the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean), who is our party’s deputy critic for agriculture, among many other chores that he does within this caucus. Charles Drury’s son, E. C. Drury, served as Premier from 1919 to 1923, and his grandson, Robert Drury, is currently reeve of Oro township.

But I do wish to pay tribute to some more recent ministers who have contributed to the strength of agriculture here in Ontario. In recent history, Bill Stewart, as mentioned by the minister, has become, as they say, a legend in his own time. As minister over a span of some 14 years, he can certainly list many accomplishments. The creation of an orderly marketing system for milk, as the result of the 1965 milk industry inquiry, has led to industry stability and substantial improvements to quality. Some of us will remember that, at the time, there was a very vigorous debate over Bill Stewart’s legislation, but the last 20 years have proved it to be of benefit to producers and the full approval of Bill Stewart’s hard work. Congratulations and thanks, Bill.

Before Bill Stewart, we should all remember Tom Kennedy, minister for some 10 years, from 1943 to 1953, for whom 801 Bay Street has been dedicated. More recently, we have had Bill Newman and Lorne Henderson, who presided over much more difficult economic times for the agricultural industry.

I want to pay particular tribute to the Minister of Agriculture and Food from 1982 to 1985, my friend Dennis Timbrell. This former colleague of ours was instrumental in developing a more modern and higher profile for agriculture. He was also the key figure behind the idea of a national tripartite stabilization plan. Under his leadership Ontario successfully made the argument for national programs to move away from balkanization of support programs and the wars of provincial treasuries.

Agriculture in this country is, of course, a joint federal-provincial responsibility. As a result, farmers have benefited from two sources of government support but have suffered from competing provincial programs instead of from complementary ones. Today, for example, an Ontario beef producer gets $6 of support for every $100 in cash receipts, as compared to over $45 for every $100 from our colleagues in the province of Quebec. It is this sort of inequity that the current minister and his two predecessors, Phil Andrewes and Ross Stevenson, have had to deal with.

Although today we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the swearing in of the first minister, I also want to mention one other person who for eight years filled the job of parliamentary assistant to the ministers of Agriculture and Food of the day, from 1977 to 1985. I refer, of course, to our former colleague and good friend from the riding of Elgin, Ron McNeil. He was tireless in his role as a liaison person between farmers and the ministry. His opinions were frequently sought and given. His contributions must not be overlooked.

In my own involvement with Ontario agriculture, I go back almost 40 years, believe it or not. I joined the Sandringham Calf Club at the age of 12. There we were taught not only how to properly feed and prepare animals for the show ring, but also how to get along with our peers and friends, how to properly operate public meetings and the process to follow when one is judging livestock, along with the giving of reasons for that conclusion.

This and many other very significant exercises were not only learned but remembered by many of us who attended 4-H. My personal experience with the Ontario Junior Farmers has also played a very important part in my own personal life, having been a member for many years of the junior farmers and having been privileged to attend the Ontario Junior Farmers’ leadership training camp in the late 1950s at Lake Couchiching. This was a great learning experience, for all who attended had the opportunity of meeting people from across the length and breadth of this province.

If I can offer any advice to future ministers for the next 100 years, it would be the following: that the minister of the day never forget that he or she is the producers’ representative at the cabinet table, that he or she always act in the interest of agriculture and that he or she not let partisan politics interfere with the development of a sound agricultural policy. By doing so, they will serve not only the interests of agriculture but the interests of all the residents of Ontario.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ONTARIO GUARANTEED INVESTMENT CERTIFICATES / CERTIFICATS DE PLACEMENT GARANTIS DE L’ONTARIO

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Today the Province of Ontario Savings Office will begin issuing Ontario guaranteed investment certificates. This initiative was announced in the recent budget by my colleague the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

The savings office will offer GICs at rates competitive with other major Ontario financial institutions. Terms are for 12 to 60 months with the option to select any maturity date. Purchasers will also have a choice of denominations from $500 to $100,000. As with all other POSO deposits, every dollar will be fully guaranteed by the province of Ontario.

Les caisses d’épargne de l’Ontario offriront, à partir d’aujourd’hui, des certificats de placement garantis à des taux aussi avantageux que les taux proposés par toutes les institutions financières les plus importantes de la province. Les conditions concernant la durée de placement seront de douze à 60 mois, avec la faculté de choisir la date d’échéance. Nos clients auront le choix d’acheter des certificats d’une valeur allant de 500 $ à 100 000$.

I am confident that the new Ontario guaranteed investment certificates will be successful and will further enhance the savings office’ s long and rich tradition of dependability and customer service.

1400

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I wish to report to honourable members on the status of the collective-bargaining dispute involving All-Way Transportation Corp. in Metropolitan Toronto and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union.

As honourable members know, All-Way provides an important daily Wheel-Trans transportation service to disabled people. There are over 15,000 disabled men, women and children who are registered users of the service. On a typical day, Wheel-Trans carries over 1,000 disabled people to and from their destinations within Metropolitan Toronto.

One hundred and seventy-five drivers and maintenance employees represented by Amalgamated Transit Union Local 113 have been in a legal strike position since April 16. They have been on a work-to-rule campaign, which has involved a slow-down in service.

Wheel-Trans service is presently provided by All-Way, but the Toronto Transit Commission is scheduled to assume responsibility for provision of the services in 1989. This is the last agreement, therefore, to be negotiated with All-Way. Because the TTC is taking over the service, and because of the nature of the issues in dispute, negotiations have included the TTC as well as All-Way, the current employer.

The ministry has provided intensive mediation services throughout the negotiation process. An all-night session was held on Saturday in an effort to avoid the strike. The parties were unable at that time to reach a collective agreement, however, and a strike commenced early this morning.

The employer has agreed to provide emergency transportation to those who require it. In addition, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has mounted an emergency assistance plan for its own disabled clients who have not been able to make alternative arrangements and who need rides for essential reasons. That ministry is also providing information to any disabled inquirer who may be experiencing difficulty because of the strike. In the meantime, I expect the full co-operation of union and management in the provision of emergency services as required.

I am keenly aware of the impact a prolonged strike will have on disabled people. Accordingly, I am happy to report that the parties will reconvene and mediation will recommence at 3 p.m. this afternoon, and it is my expectation that more determined efforts will be made to settle this important dispute.

In that regard, I would like to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mrs. Beryl Potter, the president of Action Awareness, who has met with me on two occasions, most recently this morning, to present to me the concerns of the Scarborough Advocacy Centre for Disabled Persons and Their Families relating to this current work stoppage.

RESPONSES

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. B. Rae: In responding to the statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), I want to say on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we hope very much that the mediation session this afternoon will be a successful one and the negotiations will produce a collective agreement. There are few issues that are more difficult for all of us than ones which involve very much competing rights and competing goods. We very much want to see disabled people have access to transportation and want very much to do whatever we can to make sure that people do have access to transportation and that they are not discriminated against in any way because of lack of access to a service because of a labour dispute.

At the same time, when one looks at some of the issues that have been raised in this dispute, they are most troubling. We know, for example, that the difference between the wages paid to drivers who work for Wheel-Trans and who are responsible for transporting people who are disabled are as much as $4 per hour lower than the rate currently being paid to TTC drivers. At the same time, we know the TTC itself is going to be absorbing this service and taking it over in a year’s time. We also have many other issues involving the use of part-time workers and involving the job security of those people who are now working for All-Way Transportation and whose jobs may be affected by the transfer to the TTC.

We have had precedents in this House, when GO Transit was changed in terms of its relationship from Gray Coach to the TTC. I want to say to the minister that, in our view, the provincial government has a real responsibility. The provincial government, after all, is partially responsible for funding the TTC and is partially responsible for assistance to Metropolitan Toronto in terms of its current funding arrangements with All-Way Transportation.

We look forward very much to a negotiated settlement, but one that recognizes the value of the work that is done on behalf of disabled people by transportation drivers. It would be curious indeed if, at a time when we are attempting to state very clearly and categorically that disabled people must be included as part of our society and have the same rights, we were then to turn around and say to those who drive disabled people, as opposed to those who drive for the regular TTC, that they will be paid 65 per cent, 70 per cent, 75 per cent as much as those who are working for the TTC.

This is an issue that has to be resolved. The job-security question has to be resolved. I hope very much that the minister has the support of other colleagues in cabinet and that they realize that in order to reach a just settlement, it is going to require real leadership from the provincial government with regard to this question.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED INVESTMENT CERTIFICATES

Ms. Bryden: With regard to the statement by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) about guaranteed investment certificates being offered through the Province of Ontario Savings Office, it is ironic that this mini-step towards increasing the services of the POSO branches does not go as far as the original legislation setting up the branches, which the father of the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), Mr. Nixon, introduced during the last progressive government this province ever had, namely the United Farmers-Labour government in the early 1920s.

That legislation allowed loans to be made through the branches, as well as other services that were competitive to the big financial institutions of this country. The Conservatives took away the power to provide those loans, so we still do not offer loans, which the province of Alberta does. That would have been a much more welcome gesture, particularly for all those people who are now paying $900 million more in sales taxes. They will not be looking for GICs; they will have nothing left to save. They will be looking for loans and assistance to carry themselves during this billion-dollar tax gouge that we hope will be reversed as soon as we debate the budget.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: I must say that this statement by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) demonstrates in bold fact that you cannot tell a book by its cover, because the leading cover page got me quite interested almost to the point of excitement, I would say, by suggesting that this was going to be a statement concerning a labour dispute. In fact, it is hardly a statement concerning the labour dispute; all it is is a status report on the fact that this government has not done anything.

The fact that it has not done anything speaks for itself. I, too, take the opportunity to welcome Mrs. Potter, because she is one of the strong voices on behalf of the disabled community in Metro. Unfortunately, she is a voice on her own. She does not seem to have anyone in the government joining her in expressing concern for the disabled community.

We have heard an awful lot in the last two weeks about concern in this part of Ontario and across the province as a whole for a construction site because of the risk that it might upset an economic summit. I would like to know when this government is going to show concern about real impacts on real people. We are not talking about the luxury of whether the SkyDome is completed on time. We are talking about the survival of human beings and these people who require special transportation.

1410

I may at this point just tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on Thursday when I asked the question about whether the limousines that were being used for other purposes by the cabinet members and their staffs might be used for the disabled, should that emergency arise, some very brave soul sent me an anonymous note suggesting that perhaps I might know that disabled people cannot get into normal vehicles.

In fact, there is a whole group of disabled people who can get into normal vehicles because they can put their wheelchair in the trunk. The fact is that they cannot get on to regular transportation systems because there is no accommodation for their wheelchair. I suggest again that if someone other than the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) would like to loan his vehicle, we certainly can make very good use of it for these disabled people who with a little assistance can get into a normal vehicle.

More important is the fact that these are real people who have to get out to shop; they have to get out to work. Some of them have mortgages; most of them will have rent. Every one of them has financial obligations. This government does not seem to care about the financial obligations and the livelihoods of these disabled people. We are talking about. people getting to work. We are not only talking about people who require hospital treatment and medical aid.

I think this is enough talk. It is time that this government recognized that although these people proportionately are small in number, they need the government’s help. They do not need talk and, most of all, they do not need a status report because they know what is going on.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED INVESTMENT
CERTIFICATES

Mr. Harris: In regard to the statement by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), I would like to draw to the minister’s attention the sermon that was delivered by the Reverend Dr. J. Charles Hay. He is principal emeritus of Knox College in Toronto. Dr. Hay delivered this sermon at the special divine service preceding the opening of Her Majesty’s courts in Ontario at the Cathedral Church of St. James, Toronto, on January 7, 1988.

He said: “You can be sure that on the Judgement Day everyone will have to give account of every useless word he has ever spoken. Your words will be used to judge you -- to declare you either innocent or guilty.”

With reference now to my response to the statement, I am going to heed the Reverend Hay’s advice and sit down.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform all members that we have a visitor in the Speaker’s gallery today. I ask you to join me in recognizing the Secretary of State for the state of California, Dr. March Fong Eu. Please join me in welcoming the Secretary of State.

I may seem a little nervous today but I feel as if I am under the eyes of a former Speaker. Jack Stokes is visiting us, the former Speaker and former member for Lake Nipigon.

The member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) on a point of personal explanation.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR WELLAND-THOROLD

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker and members, last Thursday a local reporter in Welland asked me if I was going to be running in the next provincial election. I gave him exactly the same answer I had given on September 10, that given my age, I did not expect that I would be.

However, given the news stories that have built on that and left some false impressions, I want to make a statement in this House today, a statement which in any event I would have been making within the next few days. It is that I will be resigning as the MPP for Welland-Thorold, effective June 30 of this year. It is one of the hardest statements I have had to make, and this exceedingly difficult decision has been prompted by some health problems which I have been experiencing.

I hasten to say that those health problems are not imminently life-threatening nor are they likely to make me more than moderately inactive. In fact, there are many other people functioning quite well with the same conditions. I am advised, though, to slow down, to shorten my hours and to avoid stress. Quite frankly, I do not know how to do all that as a member and still conscientiously discharge my responsibilities in this House and to my constituents. Perhaps because I work less efficiently than many in this House, I am unable to get everything done that I should be doing, even in 16-hour days. Besides, I will be 69 before June 30, and therefore 72 before the probable date of the next election. My condition means that time may run out on me a little sooner than it otherwise would have.

I have a wife and two children and their spouses and four grandchildren whom I love very much. With my condition, I think the time has come that I should not wait any longer to spend more time with them. Further, I want to do some travelling and, as some members in this House know, spend a bit more time at the stock car races.

I say to my colleagues in this House and to the media, do not look for any hidden reasons for my resignation. There are not any. I am not angry at anyone or unhappy with anything; I am proud to serve under the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae) as my leader. I consider him to be one of the finest leaders and one of the most decent human beings I have had the pleasure to know. I admire my caucus colleagues collectively and individually. I am as enthusiastic about the New Democratic Party as I have ever been. It will come to power, both in this province and nationally, and it will provide the best government this province and this nation has ever had, including public auto insurance.

I want to tell the members too that I am not unhappy with the parliamentary process. In spite of what sometimes appears to be raucous and inefficient decision-making, it really does discharge the democratic exercise of power very well. I want to say too, I have nothing but respect and warm feelings towards almost every member of this Legislature with whom I have sat, either now or in the past. I want to say that I am proud of all members.

There are three things I want to say before I conclude. I want to reiterate that what I have said are the reasons for my resigning are solely the reasons. I want to express my respect for the newspeople here at Queen’s Park and elsewhere. They are not just the main assurance for full and accurate public knowledge of what government and politicians are doing, they are the only assurance of that kind of knowledge, and I commend them for their incisive reporting.

Second, I am asking the Premier (Mr. Peterson), through you, Mr Speaker, to call a by-election very quickly after my retirement so that the people of Welland-Thorold will not be without representation in this Legislature for any lengthy period of time. It is really for this reason that I am giving as long an advance notice of my resignation as I am.

Finally, I want to convey my deep appreciation to the citizens of the city of Welland and the town of Thorold for giving me their unwavering and warm support and providing me with 13 wonderful years as their member of the Legislative Assembly. It has been an immensely rewarding experience. I thank all members here in this House for their part in making that so.

1420

Hon. Mr. Bradley: For those of us who sit on the government benches, and I guess most particularly for those of us who sit as members from the Niagara Peninsula, this is a day which we very much regret.

We have our partisan differences in this House, but I think anyone who is at all aware of the kind of contribution that the member for Welland-Thorold has made not only to his constituents in the cities of Welland and Thorold, not only to the people of the Niagara region but also to the people of this province, would recognize that, for all of those people, this is a day which we very much regret, although in politics we know it is a day that eventually comes to all of us.

Mel Swart -- and I will take the liberty this afternoon, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, to refer to him in a personal way rather than in the parliamentary way as the member for Welland-Thorold -- has been known as a man of the people throughout this province and beyond our borders.

He is an outstanding constituency individual. In the 16-hour days that are common for him -- and that is speaking not only of the five days of the week but also of the numerous hours he puts in on the weekend -- he has rendered outstanding service to the people of his constituency. No problem has been too small over the years for Mel Swart to take on and no cause too unimportant to champion.

He has also, of course, as those of us in this House know, made an outstanding contribution in the House and in committees. Those of us who are ministers on this side know that he keeps us on our toes at all times, particularly those for whom he has been the critic. When I served in opposition side by side with him -- I as a member of the Liberal Party, Mel as a member of the New Democratic Party -- many of the causes we championed as members of the opposition were similar, but Mel could always do it better. He could always gather the kind of public attention that was necessary to motivate governments to move more quickly than they might otherwise do.

In addition to this, there is a third aspect of a person’s job as an MPP -- and I should, in deference to the member say “as an MLA,” because he always insisted that he was a member of the Legislative Assembly, and that is appropriate -- and that is the ceremonial duties. In addition to the hard work he put in on behalf of his constituents, in addition to the research he did and the delivery in committee, in the House, in press conferences and around the province, he also carried out his ceremonial duties in an appropriate fashion, and for that, I think, the people of this province can be most thankful.

In his riding he received the support of all people. Even when there was a political avalanche coming, whether it was the Progressive Conservative government being re-elected or, in the last election, a Liberal government being elected with a huge majority, in this specific instance Mel Swart, because of his personal integrity, because of his sincerity, because of his outstanding record in the field of political representation, was a person who could always withstand that avalanche, and it was certainly understandable to those of us who reside in the peninsula.

A lot of people may not be aware that the member for Welland-Thorold tried eight times, I believe it was, running provincially and federally, before he was elected. For those of us who have gone through that similar trial and not been elected on a first occasion, we can all take heart from his perseverance. Ultimately, the people who elected him municipally understood that he could represent them exceedingly well on a provincial basis. Mel, your persistence certainly paid off and your re-elections have been with a higher degree of support each time.

I guess it would be inappropriate if I did not mention that Mel was probably Ontario’s premier comparison shopper. He made Buffalo toilet paper famous in Ontario as he went over to comparison shop.

There is something people do not know. Sometimes outside, people think we are all enemies in this House. On Friday afternoons, Mel and I would sometimes take turns driving home. I always had to look in the back seat to see what Mel was bringing. He usually had a shopping basket of a variety of items with him. It was not for the purpose of utilizing them at home, of course. It was for the purpose of speaking engagements, drawing to the attention of the authorities in the province the need for good consumer protection and keeping those in the private sector on their toes at the same time.

When we are in politics, we make a lot of friends, and Mel Swart has made a lot of friends. It is also important, if you are going to be effective in the political realm, to make the right enemies and, in his career, Mel Swart made all the right enemies.

I also think that he was an eloquent person. I have a cable TV show which I have done for some 12 or 14 years in St. Catharines. and the best guest I could always have on my cable TV show was Mel Swart, particularly when I had a sore throat. I could throw three or four questions out, and Mel could carry the entire show for me at that time and do it eloquently and well and inform the people of this province, particularly in our area, of his views, which were important, on any subject.

He was a master of the media. Those of us who first broke into parliament wondered how we could get ink in local newspapers or be on the airwaves from time to time. If any one of us watched Mel in action, we knew in the very best sense of the word that he was a showman who wanted to portray what he felt were important issues to the people of this province.

He has certainly been a leading light in the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation and, latterly, the New Democratic Party. His leader, who will no doubt be speaking this afternoon, will perhaps be stating that better than I, but we all know that Mel has made an excellent contribution to the CCF and the NDP.

Mel, you have had as well the strong support of your wife and your family over the years. I have seen them out at many events. I have seen them in the galleries of the Legislature from time to time. I have seen them support you at a time when everybody else was perhaps not as kind as they might be to you.

So from a personal friend, Mel, and from representatives on the government side, I wish you the very best in what you refer to as a retirement to the stock car races, of which you have been very fond over the years, but to what we know will be continued service to the people of your area of the province and to the province as a whole.

Mr. Brandt: I knew it could not be true when I heard the rumour in the hallway that the member for Welland-Thorold had accepted a job with a large insurance company. I am glad the member has had an opportunity today to clarify that vicious rumour which someone started. I knew it could not be true, Mel, when I was first advised of it.

The announcement today by the member is one that I think touches all of us in a very deep and personal way. If I may also use the member’s name on this one occasion, Mel Swart is someone who is an institution in this assembly, certainly, and a very admired and respected institution because of the way he has conducted himself in this House over the past 13 years.

I have had the opportunity to serve since 1981 with the member for Welland-Thorold and have always admired his tenacity in pursuing the various issues of interest to him, but more particularly, the issues of interest to the constituents he has served so ably and so well.

1430

I think we all recognize that with Mel Swart it was not simply politics, that it was very much his interest in serving the little guy, perhaps the individual who was forgotten or the individual who was overlooked by the very large amount of government we have today, where people are sometimes inadvertently passed by, whatever the government of whatever political stripe. Mel Swart made sure that did not happen.

I can remember many occasions when Mel felt so very strongly about a particular issue in this House that he would start his debate and his presentation to this House in a very soft and a very mellow tone, as we are all aware, until he wooed all of us into listening. Then there would be this rumble as the member for Welland-Thorold gained and accelerated in both the speed with which he spoke and the volume level, which went up appreciably to the point where frequently he would shake the very chandeliers in this great hall with the kind of thunderous debate he brought to this floor.

Mel Swart will leave this House with the respect of each and every member who is here today. I know that to be the case.

I trust he is going to have the opportunity and the time to pursue personal interests and that his health will allow him to do so. I trust he will not be driving the stock cars, but just watching them. I hope Mel and his family will have the opportunity to enjoy a well-deserved rest. Whoever follows in the shoes of the member for Welland-Thorold of whatever political party is, indeed, going to have some very large shoes to fill.

I have respect for the member. He knows that. We have had a number of personal conversations. That respect goes back to things like the hour of the morning he arrives here at this assembly. He is one of the earliest to come to work, and as we all know, he is one of the last to leave. His heart has always been in the right place in serving his constituents. I admire him for that. He has left his mark on the Ontario political scene in a very, very real sense.

My party and I want to say that we have great admiration for you, sir. We have great respect for you, and we wish you well.

Mr. B. Rae: I am sure Mel will not be driving the stock cars because he cannot afford the insurance.

I might point out to members that Mel’s good wife, Thelma, is here in the gallery. I know members will want to say hello to her afterwards.

Mel Swart had a great deal to do with my taking on the job of leader of the New Democratic Party. First, I want to say I have just about forgiven him for that. But I also want to say, in all seriousness, that politics is a profession that has come, consistently for the last few thousand years, into some pretty tough and stringent criticism in terms of what it is that drives people who go into politics, what the price is that one pays and what kind of people succeed and do not succeed, and all the rest of it.

I just want to say about Mel today, and there will be ample opportunity to say a lot more, that I cannot think of a better example of integrity, of dedication, of no side in terms of personal ambition or anything of that kind. Mel is simply there. What you see, what all the members of this House have seen, is what is there; a pure and simple dedication for what he sees is the public good. Of course, he gets the satisfaction and the joy of doing the work he does. When we were talking about the weekend we have just gone through, because of all the publicity, Mel said it was one of the hardest weekends he had been through because he was not able to return calls from the press. Those who have known Mel and his ability to get press over time will know how difficult that is.

I just want to say that I cannot think of a better example to somebody looking at politics as a career or an avocation than simply to look at the work Mel Swart has done. He has not been a cabinet minister and has not achieved that kind of recognition because of the political ins and outs of our province, but nobody has made more of a difference to his constituents and nobody has served his own people and the people of the whole province more eloquently and with greater determination, gusto and humour. I can say as leader, and I know I speak for all my colleagues, that no one has been a better friend, a better colleague and a better happy warrior in arms than my good friend Mel Swart.

It is a sad day for me because of the reasons Mel has given for feeling it is time for him to resign. When we discussed, as we did recently, the news from his doctors and so on, he said; “I have to slow down. The doctor said this.” I said, “Well, look, you can do that and still carry on.” He said, “I can’t, because you either do it 100 per cent and you give it everything you’ve got or you don’t do it at all.” That is just the way he is. I admire that so much and I can honestly say that all of us in our caucus, as I am sure the members will understand, not only respect him but love him very much for what he has meant to all of us.

Perhaps, in closing, I could quote the words of Abe Lincoln who said that “when you measure a man, you measure him around the heart.” This is a very big man.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOUSING SUPPLY

Mr. B. Rae: It is a little hard to return to some of the more dismal realities of the Liberal government, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If you wish, we could forego question period today.

Mr. B. Rae: I am happy to wipe a tear from my eye, Mr. Speaker, and return to the business of the day. I have some questions today for the Minister of Housing.

The minister has succeeded in a ministry that has a rather remarkable capacity for underspending its budget. The minister will be aware that in the year prior to her achieving office, they underspent their budget by $52 million. Since she became minister, the Liberal government has underspent by some $38 million. I wonder if the minister does not feel that her own credibility and that of her leader -- in talking, for example, with various municipal governments around and saying that municipal governments should get cracking with respect to the housing problem -- does she not think her own underspending rather dramatically raises the question of why she has not got cracking herself?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: When we talked with the municipalities last week, what we said very clearly was that both the government and the municipalities have to get cracking. We made a commitment that in all the things that have taken time in the housing development process and have increased the price of housing because of the time it takes to develop land and get it on stream for building housing, we in this government would cut that time in half. We asked the municipalities to do the same thing on their side.

We know that we have work to do. We believe they have work to do. The message we gave them was that this is work we can do together and that if we do this work as well as I hope we will, because our commitment is there, we will be able to lower the price of housing and make it more possible for more housing that is affordable to be built for the people of this province who clearly need that help.

1440

Mr. B. Rae: I hope the minister is not blaming somebody else for the fact that her ministry has consistently underspent its own budget. Does she realize, for example, that the $38 million she failed to spend and invest last year in new housing is enough money to subsidize 5,428 rent-geared-to-income units for a year? It could purchase outright about 760 private sector units for use as co-ops or build about 475 nonprofit units.

How does she feel, as minister when she realizes that there are people who are literally living in basements, with their kids sleeping next to a hot water heater, because she has failed to spend the money this Legislature has allocated and approved her to spend? Does that not make her feel bad?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It makes me feel bad to think anybody does not have the kind of housing he or she deserves in this province, and that is the reason this government has put forward the resources that are going to make a difference.

Just today, I had a meeting with a group of private nonprofit producers to talk with them about the increased resources we are going to be using to build nonprofit housing all over this province. What I said to them, and am glad to say to the honourable member, was that we are going to be working together with them on increasing our efficiency and on working much more quickly and much more effectively than we ever have before, to make sure that much more nonprofit housing gets built all over this province as quickly and as well as it can be to serve the needs of the people of this province.

Mr. B. Rae: I still have not heard an answer to my question. Since this government has taken office the one consistent thing we can say is that this House has agreed to certain requests from the government of Ontario with respect to its housing program, and her government has consistently failed to invest and allocate the funds we in this House have authorized. At the same time, the number of families waiting, for example on the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority’s waiting list, has grown from 4,642 families in June 1985 to 8,219 families. That is a 77 per cent increase.

How does the minister justify underspending the way she has underspent money this House has allocated for housing, at a time when the housing list has gone up by 77 per cent over the last two years?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our Ministry of Housing is spending more money on providing housing every year, and that number has gone up consistently. We will be building more housing than ever before with the commitment we have made. That is extremely important.

We have also addressed some of the reasons for some of the difficulties we have had in the past, and one of them has been the whole question of land. That is the reason we introduced a loan guarantee for those groups that need to buy land in order to build nonprofit housing. We have been consistently supporting that project over the past few months now and we believe that will make a significant difference in nonprofit groups being able to build the housing we have the resources for them to build.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question to the Minister of Health. The minister will no doubt have seen the article, if she has not already seen the letter from Mrs. Pitcher in Oshawa. Her husband passed away while waiting for heart surgery. He was only 36 years old. I wonder whether the minister can tell us precisely what is her answer to Mrs. Pitcher.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am aware of this tragic case. I have received the letter the Leader of the Opposition refers to. I have written personally to Mrs. Pitcher to express my sympathy to her and her family at this very difficult time. I am aware and I recognize just what they are going through as a family, and they have my sympathy.

Because more than one hospital was involved in this case, I have asked ministry officials to look into the circumstances surrounding it.

Mr. B. Rae: This problem, this reality is one that is shared by literally hundreds of families. It is shared not only by patients with heart problems, but by many, many other patients who have other, if I might say so, very serious illnesses.

When is the minister going to make a statement in this House indicating that she understands the seriousness of the nursing shortage, that she understands the seriousness of the very real manpower problems in the health care system at the moment and that she takes responsibility for the fact that these shortages are in fact causing serious, and in some cases life-threatening illnesses to carry on for an unacceptable length of time? In fact, if one looks at the cases that are now coming across all our desks, they are situations families themselves are having to wrestle with every day.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Over the last few years, the hospital budgets for life-support programs have been increasing significantly. In the area of cardio-vascular surgery, before I became aware of this particular event the Leader of the Opposition refers to, ministry officials met with a cardio-vascular surgeon from the Toronto General Hospital as well as with a cardiologist from Sunnybrook Medical Centre to discuss the potential for a bed registry within Metropolitan Toronto to ensure that those who have urgent need for care can receive that care as quickly as possible in the nearest available bed.

Mr. B. Rae: I really wonder if the minister understands the problem. Every time I have raised in this House the question of the nursing shortage, I have said to her, which I believe in all sincerity, that the nursing shortage is so serious now in some of our hospitals that it means there are patients who are being denied care who should get care, patients who are being denied operations who should have those operations. That is happening all the time. It is not an exceptional event. It is becoming part and parcel of the life structure of our health care system.

When is the minister going to state categorically that she understands that it is the nursing shortage which is contributing to this problem and that the government has an urgent plan of action to deal with the problem of the nursing shortage? If she does not appreciate it, it is there staring her in the face and she is going to have to face up to it.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: With regard specifically to the nursing shortage, I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition and the members of this House that within the next two weeks I am meeting with a committee I have reactivated to look at short-term, medium-term and longer-term solutions to what, in the past, has been a cyclical problem, working with the Minister for Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) as well as with the Ontario Hospital Association and the administrators of teaching hospitals, to determine -- we know it is not just a matter of compensation; the Ontario Nurses’ Association recently negotiated a contract with the Ontario Hospital Association, making them the most highly paid nurses in Canada. Clearly, there are other issues we must work on to determine that our hospitals are able to attract the kind of staffing they need to ensure the highest possible care and the most efficient management to the people of this province.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Housing and it relates to the recent budget document tabled in this House by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon). As the minister is aware, every budget will bring in a series of adjustments and changes. In this particular case, the budget brought in a series of changes which, we are all aware, were all up in terms of the tax grab on the part of the Treasurer.

These adjustments and changes have an impact on a wide variety of services and programs and products in Ontario. I wonder if, as is usually the case, the minister’s officials have in fact taken some estimates of the cost impact on an average home in Ontario as a result of the Treasurer’s recent budget.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I would like to refer that question to the Treasurer, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know if the Treasurer heard the question.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I know the honourable member will be aware that we have made a substantial commitment in the budget to the support of the Minister of Housing’s endeavours. If he feels it is inadequate, then it is hard to balance that with his other statements. If he is referring to some changes in the sales tax, maybe he would like to put that more directly.

Mr. Brandt: I will put it very directly since the question was referred to the Treasurer by the Minister of Housing. The cost impact on an average home, as a result of the tax increases he has tabled before this House, will add $3,200 to the price of a home.

My question to the Minister of Housing was going to be -- it now will be referred to the Treasurer -- how is this increase of $3,200, added to the cost of a home as a result of new taxation measures he has brought in, as a result of an expansion of the sales tax and as a result of the land transfer tax, a combination of those three factors alone -- I might add that the $3,200 does not include the cost of furnishings or any other costs associated with any changes that might be done within the home itself -- how is this increase going to improve the affordability of homes in Ontario when the Treasurer’s budget has increased the cost by $3,200?

1450

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the number that the leader of the third party is using is based on the normal exuberance of his researchers.

Mr. Harris: Why don’t you table the impacts of what you’ve done, then?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, you certainly know what the increase is. I say in response to the interjector that the sales tax is now applicable to all building materials; before the budget it was applicable to all building materials except concrete. There was certainly no reason to continue the exemption, because it has to be fair and equitably provided. The fact that we have gone from seven per cent to eight per cent on building materials is a result of the decision the Treasurer made, which I hope will be supported by the thinking members of the House, that it is necessary for us to have this additional revenue in order to meet our responsibilities.

Mr. Brandt: There is nothing fabricated, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, with the figures I have shared with the Treasurer. They are on the price of an average home in the Metro Toronto area, and the price increase is $3,200.

In light of the fact that the Treasurer’s budget increases the average home price by $3,200 in this market, which is then going to cause a certain additional group of people to be in the position where they too are unable to afford a new home or to afford accommodations, because he is pricing homes out of their range, would the Treasurer do something that will in fact reduce the price of homes?

It is anticipated that, as a result of the free trade agreement -- and these estimates are put forward by the federal Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs -- the average home price will fall between $5,000 and $7,000. Will the Treasurer commit the government of Ontario, through his Premier (Mr. Peterson), to the co-operation that is necessary in order to bring about a free trade agreement, recognizing that that will neutralize the negative impact of his budget and actually reduce the prices of homes in this province?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I am amazed at the convolutions of the questioning approach of the honourable member, and I want to point out that no one is questioning the fact that an increase in the sales tax will have an economic impact. We feel in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics that that impact will be absorbed in a buoyant economy and that it will be seen by people who are buying homes, people who are building them and all of the taxpayers of the province, who today begin to pay eight per cent, as something that is unpleasant, but I hope they will finally agree that it is necessary.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Eves: My question is to the Minister of Health. In light of the review of those hospitals incurring deficits in the province, our information is that her review concludes that a large number of these hospitals experiencing deficits have one through no fault of their own. In other words, they are very properly managed, and they are still incurring a deficit. Her Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) stated that absolutely no hospital deficit will be funded by her government for whatever reason. Does she agree with the Treasurer?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member opposite I believe will know and understand, the goal is to provide the highest-quality service with the greatest possible efficiencies in hospitals. We are conducting a two-pronged review, the beginning of which is to look at those 22 hospitals with ongoing and chronic deficits. The second phase will meet our goal to ensure that hospitals are fairly funded.

The Treasurer has been very clear that whereas in the past all hospital deficits were picked up. as you might say, it is not the intention to do that this year. I believe that the majority of hospitals do meet their budgets, and some 25 per cent have surpluses. The hospitals provide excellent care to our communities, and generally do so in a fiscally responsible manner. I have not had an opportunity to review the 22-hospital review which is under way.

Mr. Eves: We understand that the minister’s deputy minister has sent out a letter implementing the Treasurer’s policy. Presumably, that letter instructs hospital administrators as to how they should go about eliminating their deficits. Can the minister tell this House what instructions hospital administrators have been given to eliminate their deficits?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The ministry maintains contact with the hospitals on an individual basis across this province to offer them advice and assistance. As I said, it is our goal that we maintain the highest-quality services and the best possible efficiency in hospitals. I believe that it is a reasonable goal to look to greater predictability in hospital budgeting and that it can be achieved.

Mr. Eves: There are some 40 per cent of the hospitals in this province that incur a deficit. I believe the minister is well aware that her own internal review shows that a large majority of them have one, as I have said, through no fault of their own, through no mismanagement. The Ontario Hospital Association indicates that programs will have to be cut if they are going to eliminate deficits in their entirety.

“In all honesty,” Gordon Cunningham is quoted as saying, “we have tackled every method of cost control we can. We believe that we are declaring our true costs, and society must look at whether we will be funded at the level the patient needs or not.”

Can the minister tell this House and the Ontario Hospital Association what services she, as minister -- it is her responsibility -- recommends these hospitals cut to meet their budgets and not have a deficit? Will the minister please utilize her responsibility here and tell hospital administrators exactly what they should do to meet their budgets?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: Let me reiterate, and I think the member has pointed out, that some 60 per cent of the hospitals in this province meet their budgets and in fact operate at surpluses. It is our intention to ensure that hospitals are fairly funded. We are reviewing the 22 with chronic deficits. When those reviews are complete -- and they are not complete and I have not had an opportunity to review them -- we will be ensuring that hospitals are fairly funded. We are looking to end chronic deficits and ensure that hospitals are adequately funded and are able to operate and to meet their budget needs and to provide the highest-quality services to their communities.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister is aware, of course, that the drivers and mechanics of Wheel-Trans voted early this morning by a vote of 126 to nothing to go on strike. The fundamental issue is getting the same conditions for the Wheel-Trans workers as already exist for Toronto Transit Commission workers. The TTC will be taking over this operation. as the minister knows, this fall.

The average wage gap in the last offer actually increased, not decreased, for the Wheel-Trans workers; and in terms of security, the last TTC offer, the one it made on April 30, was less for the workers than the one it made on April 23, just a week earlier.

On April 19, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) responded to a question about the Wheel-Trans workers by saying that the government is going to hope that the parties understand the effects of what they are involved in and act accordingly. That answer was insufficient then, as it is now; and part of that question was, will the books be opened? Can the minister tell us if the government is prepared to demand that the books be opened in these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As the member will recall, during minister’s statements I made a statement to the House on where the negotiations between All-Way Transportation Corp. and Local 113 of the Amalgamated Transit Union were at this very moment. In my statement I said that the parties were going back to mediation this afternoon at 3 p.m. Under the circumstances, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment much further on what is going on in those negotiations or to make any comment at all on the substance of those negotiations.

Mr. Mackenzie: If the minister had dealt with that question at that time we might not have reached this point.

In 1984, there was a similar situation when the GO Transit service was being transferred from Gray Coach to the TTC. Now, the Wheel-Trans service is going from All-Way to the TTC. On August 29, 1984, the Premier and many of his present cabinet ministers voted for Bill 125, which legislated an end to the negotiations. The law gave the Gray Coach workers the same wages and working conditions as those of the TTC, exactly what the Wheel-Trans people are asking for now.

Can the minister tell us why this was good enough for the Gray Coach workers by this government in 1984, and why it is not good enough for him to pass that signal on today in these negotiations?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am not sure what the member for Hamilton East is suggesting in this House with that question. I wonder whether in fact he is suggesting that a bill be introduced dealing with the matter in the same way that it was then.

I can simply say to him that the negotiations have involved the TTC for quite some time now. The issues relating to the full assumption of the service by the TTC as the successor to All-Way, as the deliverer of the service to the disabled community, are very complex. They involve a number of things, including issues relating to wages, to the business of job security and of course to part-time work. A number of those issues have been discussed publicly, but as I said in response to the first question, I simply do not think it would be helpful to the parties that are trying to come to a collective agreement, indeed right as I speak, for me to comment on what the government would prefer or would not prefer.

1500

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Education, The recent decision to provide a new school to help solve the space problems in Metro Toronto was clearly an intervention in the negotiating process by his ministry. Clearly this represents a new policy for this government, because on December 14 of last year the minister told this House, in response to a question we raised, that his ministry had no intention of intervening in the ongoing negotiations that are taking place between the Metropolitan Separate School Board and the Metro public board.

Since his no-intervention rule has now been changed for the Metro Toronto boards, will the minister now apply that same rule to Hamilton thereby providing a new school for the Hamilton-Wentworth board?

Hon. Mr Ward: In response, I want to assure the member that in dealing with issues relative to accommodation disputes under Bill 30, the practice of the ministry has been to deal with all boards of education throughout the province in the same way.

From time to time when boards reach an impasse they will approach the ministry and ask either for the appointment of a mediator or to avail themselves of the mechanisms that are provided under the current legislation brought in by Bill 30.

At that point, if the ministry, in consultation with the planning and implementation commission, is of the view that the means for locally negotiated settlement are available, what we have done is suggested and recommended a facilitator under section 136(w) of the Education Act, as opposed to moving towards mediation or arbitration as long as there appears to be a willingness on the part of both parties to resolve the issue themselves.

In the case of the Metropolitan Toronto negotiations, it became clear that they had reached an impasse. The services of a facilitator under Bill 30 were offered to both parties. That suggestion was rejected by the parties and a request came forward that the ministry participate directly.

Mr Jackson: The minister has had the whole weekend to think about his response. He is on record in Hamilton as stating that it would be irresponsible to build a new school and yet he is on record in Toronto as saying something different. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has said that kids are kids; it does not matter where they live. According to this government, it now appears there is one rule for the students in Toronto and another rule for the students in Hamilton and the rest of Ontario.

What is the government’s position, and why has the minister now by his own statements created two sets of rules in Ontario?

Hon. Mr Ward: The rules are the same for all boards. The member shows an obvious ignorance of the situation in both circumstances. In the case of the Metropolitan Toronto negotiations there was no movement towards using the mechanisms of the legislation for a third party resolution. Indeed, there was a clear willingness and a high degree of leadership shown on the part of both boards to recognize their obligations and to do whatever they could to arrive at a locally negotiated settlement among themselves without an imposed solution. The request came that the ministry participate in those discussions and I was quite happy to accede to that request.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mr. Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. There has been a lot of talk about the increased taxes in the recent budget but very little about the benefit that has come out of that.

In the 1988 budget, there was an allocation for GO Transit containing an increase of $33 million for improvements and expansion of rail service in selected areas.

The traffic congestion in my riding, and indeed in my city, is very great, and the Milton line of GO Transit is very well used. I often get calls from residents advising that there are not enough cars on the existing runs and certainly an expansion of the timetable is warranted.

My question is, will some of the additional allocation of $33 million that is allocated for improvement and expansion of the GO rail service be used to facilitate the Milton-Union Station run; and if so what is the timing for this project?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The member would be aware that the GO service is an extremely service, and as a result of that, the demands on GO service are absolutely enormous. GO is probably the most successful commuter rail service in North America and –

Mr. Laughren: Probably in the world.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Perhaps in the world.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: With a world-class minister.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: With a world-class minister. Yes; thanks.

The member has brought the concerns of transportation in general within his area to my attention, and he is aware we are working on a number of various initiatives with respect to roads and, of course, the GO Transit service.

The Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the government since 1985 have been very aware and have shown their responsibility and have in fact adopted a very progressive manner in which we have funded and approached the expansion of GO service in a number of areas. Certainly the area my colleague is referring to is on that list of incremental services, and the timetable is just about set.

Interjection.

Mr. Mahoney: The honourable member opposite asks, “Why don’t they stay in Mississauga?” We are actually a net importer of jobs into our city every day. More people come to work than leave to work. I would like to point out that there is extremely rapid growth in Mississauga. Will the minister take this and the volume of ridership, particularly on the Milton-Union Station line, into consideration when allocating these additional funds?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I would like to tell the member that we are very much aware of the growth and development trends around the Metropolitan area, particularly with respect to Mississauga and the region of Peel. In fact, in October 1985, in our statement that established the program to expand GO Transit, after the previous government had cancelled the GO advanced light rail transit program, we indicated at that time that two additional trains would be added to the Milton line in 1988 and they will be implemented this year.

FARM FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It relates to the suggestion made during the meeting between the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) prior to the budget that the Treasurer should extend successful grant programs this year. In view of the number and cost of work accidents on farms in this province, and in view of the success of the $50-million Ontario farm management, safety and repairs program -- it was set up to run one year ending May 31, but there was such a demand from farmers that the money ran out some weeks ago and the ministry has told farmers it will not accept any more applications -- can the minister explain why the government did not respond to the prebudget request of the OFA that the budget include a one-year extension of the farm management. safety and repairs program?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I had thought, in light of the hospitality which I had extended to the member today in connection with the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food centennial, that I might have been spared a question. However, that is politics.

The farmers were well informed that when we introduced that program, the program was to run for the one year: so it did not come as a surprise to them, I do not believe. We had also indicated that, once the money was spent, that was it; we could not accept any further applications. That is not to say that we do not continue to review all of our programs. I am well pleased that the safety aspect of that program was well utilized by the farmers, and I will have to tell the member that we will be looking at programs whereby we can maybe get more farmers to become more safety conscious about their work environment. You never know, we may have a program at some time.

1510

Mr. Wildman: In regard to the comment of the minister, he just went a long way today to prove that there is indeed a free lunch.

I would just like to find out, with regard to the request of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture for the extension of successful programs, whether the minister can explain why there was no mention of the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program, the OFFIRR program, in this year’s budget. Can the minister confirm that instead of the $60 million in 1986, in 1988 we are only looking at $23 million budgeted for that program and, in fact, that it will be cut to 40 per cent instead of continuing at 100 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I guess the reason it was not mentioned in the budget is that this has been an ongoing program. It was a program that was introduced back in 1986. It was spelled out to be a three-year program with 100 per cent coverage the first year, 70 per cent the second and 40 per cent the third year. Things had not improved that much in the second year of the program so, with the co-operation of my cabinet colleagues, we decided to continue that program at 100 per cent coverage in the second year.

In the meantime, we are looking at more long-term programs for the farmers. I do not think the farmers want to rely on this type of ad hoc program when we figure that more longer-term programs are needed. We are working on a longer-term program, and I am hoping I can announce a much longer-term program for farmers when the OFFIRR program does come to an end.

The farmers are not surprised that the OFFIRR program is being terminated. It was a three-year program, and they knew that the terms were 100 per cent, 70 per cent and 40 per cent.

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

Mrs. Marland: Last week, I asked both the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) about the impending risk of strike for the Wheel-Trans workers. This is the third time in six days I have been on my feet to defend the interests of the disabled community.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is to which minister now?

Mrs. Marland: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Now that the minister has joined the ranks of those people on his side of the House who say things will work their way out and now that he knows they have not worked themselves out, my question to him is this: two years ago, the minister legislated the Wheel-Trans people back during a similar labour dispute. Is he going to step in to quickly end this strike, or are thousands of disabled people going to have to wait until his government has the courage to do something?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I realize that my friend the member for Mississauga South has been on her feet a lot. Her problem is that she has not said very much when she has been on her feet.

If she is telling this House that in her view or in the view of her party, the workers, the drivers and the mechanics who are currently out on strike should be legislated back to work; well, that is her view and I would like her to stand up and say that.

We have taken a number of steps to ensure that the services which are of an emergency type are provided to the disabled community. I add that many employers are taking the same sorts of steps, so disabled people who will not be able to get to work with Wheel-Trans services are getting to work with the assistance of employers and with other community groups.

Mrs. Marland: This minister may say that I have been on my feet and I have not been saying anything. At least I have not been standing on my feet spouting out platitudes the way the government has on this issue. I think the problem is that the minister does not realize he is dealing with real people.

My supplementary question is this: since the minister and I were able to get to work today, and he in a more comfortable means I would suggest probably than I, and since the only alternative for many in the disabled community is that they spend money and find an alternative, expensive form of transportation. will his government agree today to reimburse these disabled people who find costly alternative means such as taxis during the strike, or is the minister simply going to end the strike and allow the disabled community to get on with their lives?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I look forward to the member for Mississauga South standing up in this House and telling us what her position is on the strike.

The collective bargaining process must be given a chance to work itself out. The parties have been meeting right throughout the weekend to try to reach an agreement. The strike is only some several hours old. The parties are meeting right now.

Mrs. Marland: They met Saturday night. What was wrong with last night or yesterday afternoon or this morning?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Does the member expect -- she keeps shouting and screaming. Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would just like to advise the member for Mississauga South that she has already asked her supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The parties are meeting right at this very time. For the member to stand up and suggest that in the midst of two parties trying to reach a collective agreement, the Minister of Labour should interpose his view as to how the matter should be settled simply suggests that she does not have any idea whatever of what collective bargaining is all about.

INCOME TAX

Ms. Hart: My question is to the Treasurer It concerns tax increases in his recent budget.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Hart: I have had some calls in my constituency office complaining about tax increases in Ontario, specifically --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The member for York East.

Ms. Hart: The calls deal specifically with the increases to provincial income tax. The people of Ontario already must pay an amount equal to 50 per cent of their federal taxes into provincial coffers. Why, in addition to other tax increases contained in this budget, has the Treasurer deemed it necessary to raise provincial income tax? How does he see this tax increase affecting the pocketbooks of the people of Ontario?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think the member is aware that because of the initiatives at the federal level, the revenues from provincial income tax will be substantially reduced. We projected that without any action taken by myself as Treasurer to remedy it, we would in fact have had our revenues from only this particular source reduced by about $510 million.

It would have been nice if I could have left that alone, but I have a requirement to pay the bills around here and also to provide the financing for the programs of development that have been so often discussed in the Legislature by right-minded members -- make that correct-minded members.

In fact, the change of one percent this year and another per cent next year will leave about $238 million in the hands of the taxpayers, which will result in a reduction in their checkoff beginning July 1, that is the checkoff for personal income tax purposes.

Ms. Hart: I can appreciate the Treasurer’s need to make up revenue lost as a result of federal tax reform, but I would like to ask the Treasurer how he can say, as he has on several occasions and again today, that he supports federal tax reform when his own tax increases are designed to recoup those lost revenues.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It is a valid question. We have paralleled the base changes in the personal income tax and almost every change in the Corporations Tax Act. In that connection, our paralleling of federal initiatives is almost complete.

I was concerned, however, in the case of the personal income tax, that the fairness had been interfered with by the amount of revenue the system would remove from the upper level of the income spectrum. For that reason, we imposed a surtax on incomes, in general, above $80,000 to $85,000 per year.

At the same time, we were concerned that the changes in the base of the corporation income tax would interfere with the competitive position that Ontario has and has maintained vis-à-vis the northern industrialized states. While we paralleled those bases, because we support tax reform, we also introduced an array of programs to encourage our industries to expand here in Ontario and, particularly, to emphasize the research and development component.

1520

GOODYEAR CANADA INC.

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Last month after there were stories that Goodyear Canada was going to relocate in Napanee, the minister was asked a question by my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and responded that he would be making an announcement about the Goodyear project in due course. We have had no announcement.

Can the minister tell the House whether it is the policy of this government to assist a company such as Goodyear, one that has laid off 1,500 people in one community, to relocate to another community -- looking for a government handout -- yet without offering any guarantee that the laid-off workers will be given priority in seeking employment in the new community?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for the question. Just to bring her up to date as to where the issue stands: I did say that in due time I expect to make an announcement regarding the location of the Goodyear plant. I have to say to her that is still the case. We are not in a position to make the announcement, primarily because there are still some federal matters that have not been resolved, but I have every indication that announcement will be forthcoming very soon.

To respond to the second part of the member’s question as to whether we are in the habit of providing financial assistance to a firm that has closed down a facility in one place and opened it somewhere else, I would say to her that the issue of closing the plant in New Toronto was a separate issue. We negotiated the severance on that and what we have to decide -- it really is a matter that is very difficult, and I admit it -- is: do we cut off our nose to spite our face? We have a situation where a plant closes and we resolve or try to resolve that issue; and then separate to that, we go out and try to encourage some economic activity in an area of the province that can use it.

I can tell the member that we will make every effort -- we have not signed any arrangement -- to see to it that those employees in New Toronto are given fair treatment in any new facility that goes in to any other location in Ontario.

Mrs. Grier: Given the tone of the minister’s response, I am not very comforted by the thought that he is going to make every effort. It seems to me it is a clear case of robbing the workers in one community to pay Paul in another community. That is not good enough for the Lakeshore.

At the annual meeting of Goodyear Canada Inc. last month, the shareholders were told that Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. of Akron. Ohio imposed a levy on the Canadian operation of almost $30 million, exactly the same amount this government is reputed to be negotiating with Goodyear Canada.

Can the minister give us an unequivocal guarantee that this government is not going to facilitate the passing through of public funds to corporate imperialists like Goodyear from Akron?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I would challenge the member to visit the part of eastern Ontario where that proposed plant is going to go and tell the workers who are going to be employed that there are corporate imperialists coming in to give them those jobs.

I should also say to her that we have a situation where we are in a competitive position in this province. We are not competing with New Toronto and Napanee. We are competing with Texas, Kentucky and Tennessee. What we have is an obligation to bring economic stimulation to this province, to provide jobs for Ontarians.

There are two separate issues: one is a federal tax issue dealing with the rebates that are going to the corporate headquarters in Akron, which is not a provincial matter; the other is the responsibility of myself as minister, my ministry, to help bring jobs to Ontario, to bring economic stimulation to areas of the province that need it.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. On December 2, 1987, there was a meeting of the Parkway Forest Tenants’ Association, and in attendance at that meeting was Virginia Woo of the rent review office. At that meeting she apologized that the minister had not responded to the group of tenants earlier.

It turns out that four and a half months after Charles Hopper had written the minister, he finally got an answer from her. An MPP, the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz), wrote to the minister and got an answer in two months, and so we have got a four-and-a-half-month answer. By the way, the answer was not that good. It was pretty fuzzy and it passed the problem over to other people.

My question for the Minister of Housing is, what is a reasonable time frame for this minister to respond to people in the province of Ontario, tenants or landlords? What is a reasonable time frame for her to answer them on questions they might have?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: A reasonable time frame is as quickly as is possible.

Mr. Cousens: I am sure that, with the estimates now out, the minister is going to be able to respond more quickly. From 1986-87 the figure has gone from $16 million for the housing policy program up to $26 million last year and this year to a whopping $50 million that the minister is going to spend. Does that mean we are going to get better answers? Does it mean we are going to get quicker answers? Does it mean that we are going to begin to see what is going on within this ministry?

I would like to ask the minister, who just has not come up with an answer yet, although we keep on giving her a chance --

Mr. Speaker: You just asked three questions.

Mr. Cousens: My question is -- the main question; I am just leading up to it -- when does the minister plan to clean up the backlog she now has of 23,000 or 26,000 cases with her whopping $50-million housing policy program, and what would be a reasonable time frame for rent review to respond to tenants and landlords?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It is because I am so concerned that tenants and landlords get certainty more quickly that we have pledged more resources to this part of the ministry to make sure they get the responses they deserve as quickly as possible.

There are some very good things that have happened under rent review recently, and one thing I am very glad to be able to tell the honourable member is that, as a result of the work of rent review and the Residential Rental Standards Board, over the past little while more than 500 landlords in this province, many of whom had outstanding work orders for as long as two years back, have, because of the work of our ministry, fixed the buildings where tenants live and given tenants all over this province better maintenance and better-quality housing than they would have had without the work of our ministry.

SALE OF LOTS

Mr. Callahan: My question is to the Minister of Housing, and perhaps she would share it with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye). Over the weekend, the Toronto Star reported that there was literally a mob scene in either Thornhill or Markham with people crawling over one another to purchase lots that were being made available. The difficulty with these lots was that, as I read the report --

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Our questions are tougher than yours.

Mr. Villeneuve: We noticed that.

Mr. Eves: Tougher for the questioner.

Mr. Callahan: I notice the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) is not here. Perhaps he is not interested.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Callahan: I notice that these lands had not been either zoned or designated in the official plan and they were in fact being offered for sale with deposits as high as $30,000.

My question to the minister is whether she could confer with her colleagues and perhaps attempt to eliminate the possibility of lots being sold in such a fashion, for two reasons: first of all, the possible loss of the very significant deposits should the builder not be able to meet his financial commitments; second, instant flips, which would result in value that may be lost as a result of the rezoning or the official plan change being turned down.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I will, of course, undertake to talk with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about what we can do about that. I need to look at it in greater detail.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Pouliot: I have a question for the Treasurer. Last December in this House, the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) stated that the difference in unleaded gas prices between northern Ontario and southern Ontario was in the order of 0.4 cents a litre. In some cases, he stated, the prices in the north and the south were pretty well the same.

We conducted a random survey after his budget -- in fact, on April 27 -- and it showed the following: in the township of Schreiber in northwestern Ontario, unleaded, 56.9 cents; in Beardmore, 54.9 cents; in Nipigon, 54.9 cents; in Kingfisher Lake, 66 cents; in Fort Severn, $1.01 a litre; in Toronto, at four self-serve stations between 45 and 46 cents a litre; and yes, the boys at Earl’s in St. George, Ontario -- I would imagine that most people tell the truth in St. George -- charge 41.9 cents.

1530

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Pouliot: There is about 15 cents’ difference between the north and south, but for the Treasurer that is not enough. He went and picked our pocket by another cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Pouliot: What benefits will we derive from the increase?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable gentleman indicated his survey was dated April 27. Mine is dated April 28. Although I have not got Fort Severn, which can be reached, as members know, only by a lengthy flight by private aircraft, which the honourable member does on occasion, it really is not reasonable to compare the price of gasoline in Fort Severn with downtown Toronto self-service. I just want to suggest that might be a bit extreme.

Also, the Earl’s Shell Service in South Dumfries township, a village of St. George, is very much subject to the capitalist competitive system. They finally got the capitalist competitive system under control, not on April 27 but April 28, and the member will be glad to know that the price at Earl’s Shell on April 28 was 48.5 cents. Everybody had filled up everything. including their tractors, and then the price went up.

Perhaps I should retain some of the more informative aspects of my answer for the honourable member’s supplementary.

Mr. Pouliot: When dealing with this government, there are at least three sides to any story: the government’s side, and we are not quite sure what it is; the minister’s side; and the facts. The facts are as follows: a portion of road between Hemlo and the Manitouwadge corner is to be fixed. It is the Trans-Canada Highway. It is in deplorable condition. The latest gouging was to fix those roads and to expand the road network in northern Ontario.

I get a letter -- what a coincidence -- on April 21 from the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton).

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a supplementary.

Mr. Pouliot: He says as follows, “A contract for rehabilitation” -- I guess when he is talking in terms of roads it means paving -- “for this section of highway will be called in 1989, depending on the availability of funding.”

He was doing so well. Will the Treasurer honour his commitment -- we pay 15 cents more a litre --

Mr. Speaker: And your question?

Mr. Pouliot: -- and finally give us the kind of road that the people in St. George take for granted?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The honourable member knows that we always keep our commitments. We are well known for that and the people expect those commitments to be kept. I thought he would be interested to know that with the increase in the tax on leaded fuel, which was put on for environmental purposes only, we now have almost a complete equivalency in price in most communities.

But as I look at a random sample of prices taken April 28 -- and naturally these change in a competitive society -- in Ottawa the price was 51.9 cents for unleaded; in Sault Ste. Marie it was 49.9 cents; in Lindsay it was 51.9 cents; in Sudbury it was 50.7; in Toronto it was 53.9; in Timmins it was 52.5 cents; in Scarborough it was 48.9 cents; in Parry Sound, which is about to be in northern Ontario, they tell me, it was 50.9 cents; and so it goes -- Bracebridge, St. Catharines, 48.9 cents.

There is a variation in price. I believe that in some small communities, whether they are in the north or in the south, where competition is not as intense as it otherwise might be, there is a tendency to do what everybody seems to do in these circumstances and charge what the traffic will bear. I think the honourable member would not recommend government-controlled gasoline prices. The only place where this occurs is really in Nova Scotia, where the control is at the highest level in the maritime provinces. We do not want to repeat that in this jurisdiction, I am sure the honourable member would agree.

NURSING SERVICES

Mr. Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Health. In January the minister told this House that the reason several women were transferred out of Metro to deliver babies and the reason a critically ill newborn was transferred to Buffalo for treatment was that there were not enough nurses available at hospitals.

At that time, the minister proudly pointed out that she was reactivating the Advisory Committee on Nursing Manpower -- a committee, I might add, which her predecessor had dissolved -- to look into the problems the province was experiencing with regard to nursing shortages. The committee was to report to her by the end of February. It is now May 2, 1988, and still no action. When is the minister going to stop paying lipservice to this serious problem and start coming up with some concrete solutions?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I have been discussing this particular issue with a number of representatives from the nursing profession and I am meeting with the nursing manpower committee next week.

Mr. Eves: As the minister will know, the Ontario Nurses’ Association felt that it was necessary to take it upon itself to study the problem, due to the lack of action on the part of the government and the minister. They had Goldfarb poll nurses during the months of January and February about this issue and have recently released the results. I am sure the minister will be aware that the poll found that one out of seven nurses is planning to leave the profession in the next two to three years and that the reasons for their leaving include excessive patient loads, too few support staff, increasing demands to perform non-nursing duties, poor work scheduling, not enough say in the way the health care system is run, inadequate compensation and lack of incentives.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Eves: The minister claims that the problems of the nursing shortage are cyclical. Does that mean that she is just waiting until these problems go away by themselves? Is that how she is going to return the system of health care in the province to the world-class system it used to be in 1985?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: It is interesting to note that this problem is not unique just to Ontario. In fact, there are more nurses moving into Ontario than any other province. What we find is that this is something which is worldwide, and as we expand to community-based services it is essential that we do manpower planning to reflect those needs.

I have been meeting over the last few months with a number of nursing associations and organizations. I have been discussing this with the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod). I think it is essential that not only in the area of nursing, but in all health care manpower planning, we look to short-term, medium-term and long-term initiatives to ensure that the services required by the people of Ontario will be able to be performed by health care professionals who are adequately trained and able to deliver those important services.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the time for oral questions and responses. The member for Waterloo-North (Mr. Epp).

MEMBER’S COMMENTS

Mr. Runciman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As you may recall, last Thursday, in a rather emotional outburst on an issue that I felt quite strongly about, I made some comments in reference to the member for Sudbury East (Miss Martel) which I have subsequently indicated to her I regretted sincerely. I felt it appropriate today to put those views on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I extend my apologies to you. In seven years you have seen me get irritated on occasion, but never to the point I was the other day. I think that is indicative of my feelings on the issue, but that was no excuse for the comments I made in reference to the member for Sudbury East and I want to express my regret on the record and extend my apology.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On a related point, Mr. Speaker, if I might: during the time that the member for Leeds-Grenville was upset last week, I had an interjection which I very much regret and noticed when I reread the record, and I want to apologize to the member for my interjection as well.

1540

PETITIONS

Mr. Speaker: If the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) is finished --

Mr. Epp: No.

Mr. Speaker: I can recognize another member if you --

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Epp: I have just a few citizens concerned about Sunday shopping and I have just a few petitions here which I received on Friday. Together with my colleagues, the Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), I met with the Sundays for People group and they gave me a number of petitions. I have not read them all. I cannot vouch for each individual one, but I did promise them and I do --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Usually the process is for a member to make a statement on the content very briefly and to say the member has signed the petition. It is not a time to debate.

Mr. Epp: You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that I would not have had a chance to have read them all, so I just want to present them at this time.

Mr. Pouliot: What do they say?

Mr. Villeneuve: What are they all about?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry, they are probably not addressed to the Lieutenant Governor, then.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I have some petitions and in fact I have noted they are covered by letters addressed to the Lieutenant Governor. I beg leave to file them, covered by the two collectors, who are Sundays for People and Sears Canada Inc. These petitions, they indicate to me, were collected both before and after the tabling of Bills 113 and 114. They deal with Sunday shopping and they have indicated lack of knowledge of those two --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I may not have made it very clear. However, I thought on very recent, previous occasions I tried to draw to the attention of the House that members, of course, can read the main content and not debate it.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Tatham: “To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“In view of the many accidents and two recent deaths involving vehicles on the Towerline Road in the township of Norwich in the county of Oxford, we, the undersigned, hereby petition you to cause the construction of Highway 403 in the county of Oxford to be completed immediately so that traffic will pass directly between Highways 403 and 401, and not use as a connecting link the Towerline Road, Oxford county road 15, a narrow two-lane rural road never intended to be used as a major provincial link.”

There are 1,480 signatures, and I have also signed it.

ACCESS TO LAKES

Mr. Black: I have a petition signed not just by my wife, nor is it signed by only two people, but rather signed by 154 members of the Georgian Bay Hunters and Anglers Inc., which reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, consider the proposal by the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters Association to close crown land access roads, enforce closures on lakes and have tourist operators charge residents for access to water bodies on crown land as outrageous and totally unacceptable.”

I am pleased to present this petition and to sign my name at the bottom of it.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr. Sola: I have two petitions regarding Sunday shopping, one from St. Luke’s-on-the-Hill, and it reads:

“Enclosed is a petition signed by 61 members of our congregation.

“1. Our opposition to transferring authority to legislate on Sunday shopping entirely to municipalities; and

“2. Our opposition to open Sunday shopping in Ontario.”

It is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

The second one is from Church of St. Hilary in Mississauga, which reads:

“We, the undersigned, members of St. Hilary’s Anglican Church, Mississauga, do hereby petition the Lieutenant Governor and the Premier of Ontario that we are opposed to the proposed legislation that would give municipalities and regional councils the power to regulate Sunday shopping. Our families need a common pause day. The extension of Sunday shopping is neither necessary nor desirable.”

They were both mailed prior to the legislation’s being tabled.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO HOME OWNERSHIP SAVINGS PLAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved first reading of Bill 126, An Act to assist Ontario Residents to save for the Purchase of a First Home.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Conway: I move the order of the day standing in the name of the honourable the Leader of the Opposition concerning a want of confidence.

Mr. Breaugh: I seek unanimous consent, in the absence of the member for York South (Mr. B. Rae), to put that motion.

Agreed to.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Breaugh, in the absence of Mr. B. Rae, moved motion 1 under standing order 70(a):

That the government lacks the confidence of this House because of its abject failure to provide decent, affordable housing for the working families of Ontario, in particular, through its failure to increase the supply of affordable housing; through its failure to protect the existing housing stock; and through its failure to protect tenants.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Just for the information of the House and for the table, by agreement there will be a sharing of the time for this debate among the three parties represented in this chamber. That agreement also expects that a series of wrapups will begin on a time-sharing basis at or very near to 5 p.m. this afternoon.

Mr. Breaugh: We have had a lot of discussion throughout the fall session and on into the spring about a very complex set of issues around housing matters. It has been some time since this Legislature has spent so much of its collective effort trying to deal with matters that have to do with housing.

As a matter of fact, at the time the previous government was in power, it virtually dismantled the entire ministry, at a time when, I suppose, there was general agreement that housing had been kind of put on an agenda that seemed to take care of people’s needs and there was less need for the government to have an active role in that regard and the private sector could do it all.

Perhaps all that is happening now is that we are paying a heavy price for that decision. I think the consensus is not just among people in this Legislature but among people who reside in Ontario that there is indeed a crisis in housing. We have reached that state, because I think we have hit the point where there is not a family left in Ontario that has not some member directly affected by a housing problem. That is, surely, unusual.

It is even more unusual to find us in this quandary at a time of great economic growth. One of the things that strikes one immediately when one talks to the homeless, for example, is how can this be? How can there be people in large numbers on the streets of our big urban cities in the middle of this affluent society?

One of the things that has always made Canada different from, say, the United States is that we have always said to ourselves, “We will never allow there to be homeless people sleeping on the streets.” We have all gone to American cities and to their fine opera houses, their great halls of political power, their great hotels, and we have seen outside all of these the homeless lying on the street. We have always said: “That is a benchmark. That is the difference between Canada and the United States. We would never allow a problem like that to exist here.”

1550

I want to start on two or three fronts this afternoon because we are limited in time. I want to begin with what I consider to be the great shame of this society, and that is the homeless.

There are those who see them in our large cities and say, “Well, that is a big city problem.” They are not just in the cities. They are in the rural areas as well. I am pleased to note that lately some of the Toronto papers are beginning to notice that there are housing problems in rural Ontario as well as in the big city.

There is a more startling edge to it in Toronto because the numbers are startling. To think that here in all this affluence there are, by some accounts, 13,000 people without a decent place to stay at all is startling. It is a scathing condemnation of a society that says, quite rightly: “We can afford to house the Toronto Blue Jays in a new domed stadium. We can build a new police station. We can build opera houses. We can spend all kinds of money and run all kinds of programs.” In the middle of all this are the homeless.

It is odd, too, where they are found, because the homeless I have talked to are a particularly resourceful group of people. That may be, very simply or crudely, because they have no other option than to be resourceful. For many of them, if they are not resourceful they die.

In this society that is not a common phenomenon to observe. There are few things you would find in Ontario where if you do not take some protective action you would die, but among the homeless that is one of them because we live in a climate that is severe. They are resourceful.

It is ironic that many of the homeless find that the place where they can at least stay warm in the winter is in one of the big parking garages in downtown Toronto. At least there are heat vents. So when the cars have gone home to the suburbs for the evening, the homeless move in. They literally crawl into holes in structures like that where there are service panels, where there are places where water-mains are connected, They literally crawl in and keep themselves warm for the evening.

Some understand that there are structures around that are warm and bright where people do not hassle them too much and they go there, like Toronto-Lester B. Pearson International Airport as a centre for the homeless -- it surely was not intended that way but they are there -- and like our grand hotels in the downtown core where they would be kicked out of the lobby for sure, but in the stairwells where people rarely go they can be safe for a night.

What a shame it is that in the middle of all this extravagance we have not been able to deal with the problem of finding them -- not a place for the night, because we can address that and we are doing that; in my community, like many others, we have a hostel system that is quite good and it is now expanding. But a hostel system is not a solution for these people; it is like an emergency ward in a hospital.

I do not think I could work in a hostel. I do not think I could look someone in the eye who I know is poor, is not well fed and has no place else to go, and say, “You have stayed your three nights in our hostel; now you have to get out.”

The homeless people I have talked to, being resourceful, know how to get shelter. I talked to a guy on College Street. We were having a little rally and we invited the minister down to talk to us and she could not make it that day. He said: “I know how to get shelter for a night. If it is cold out, if the hostels are full and there is no place for me to go, I go into a restaurant and create a disturbance.”

This is true. If he asked for a place to stay for the evening at the door of the minister’s office, somebody on her staff would say, “Sorry, we do not do that stuff.” But if he goes into a restaurant and creates a disturbance, we sure know how to deal with him then. Then the cruisers arrive and the police arrest him. Then the law system takes its toll. Then they put him through a court system. All this time we feed him and all this time we provide him with shelter, and for as long as the jail sentence is he is looked after.

Is this what we want? Is this the kind of society we are trying to build here? Do we really mean that because the homeless in rural Ontario are out of the sight of most of us that is acceptable? Alabama and Mississippi are not the only places in the world where people in rural areas live in shacks. We have that in Ontario and many of us who have been around the province have seen this ourselves.

If you have been through northern Ontario and have seen how our native people are treated, you would be ashamed. If you have been to rural Ontario and have seen how the poor are treated, you would be ashamed. If you have been to many of our parts of rural Ontario, where we pay people $75,000 and $80,000 and $90,000 a year to administer social services programs, and their version of helping people in this situation is to provide them with a bus ticket to the next city, you would be ashamed. I am ashamed that with all the wealth this province has, with all the resources this government has, we have done very little, nothing at all for the homeless.

If it were true that we do not know what to do I guess I could accept it; but we do. We do have examples, small in number, of people who know how to provide the homeless with a decent place to live. We do know what a benefit that is in a number of ways, when people get their lives stable enough that they know where they are going to sleep tonight. It is amazing that in the middle of ail this affluence, again there are food banks at a phenomenal level.

I came across a little Sunday bulletin from St. Paul’s Anglican Church. At that church like many other churches they run what they call their parish pantry. In other words, they collect mostly canned goods and packaged goods and distribute them to people who are poor and in need. In their church bulletin is this little quote -- they are quoting a former Metropolitan Toronto councillor -- “It is absolutely disgraceful if churches which set up parish food programs say nothing about the root causes of hunger.” That may be a low blow, but it contains some truth.

At the root of the hunger problem in our city is housing. There are thousands of people in Toronto who are in low-paying jobs or on welfare who have to spend up to 80 per cent of their incomes on housing, to say nothing about the many who cannot afford housing at all and sleep in hostels. People know, much more than one would anticipate, that the root of this problem we see in our society is a gut one, shelter. They care.

If this government were to try to mount an argument that it could not afford to approach the housing problem, we would collectively laugh it out of here. It has income at levels few governments have ever seen in Ontario. The people out there are quite prepared to give up their time on their weekends to stock a local food bank. The response to pleas to help the starving in Ontario is phenomenal. The support among the public to take some action in a meaningful way to solve this crisis is there, and yet the government does so little.

I cannot help but draw a comparison. If the crisis were among other people, if some of these people were not dirty and unwashed, and many not fully educated and few able to clothe themselves as we do, one would look at them differently. If a natural disaster hit Etobicoke tomorrow morning, I know exactly what would happen. The government of Ontario would declare, “There is a crisis in part of Ontario and we have to respond to that.” The limousines would head for Etobicoke and the ministers would be there showing great care and concern as long as the film crews were around, and the cheques would be there. I know that because I have seen two governments now respond to disasters of that kind in exactly the same way.

Because the homeless are not all in one place, because they are not exactly the kind of people one would probably think of as stable voters, perhaps because one is not aware of them, the government does not respond. Maybe it would be an idea to gather them together somewhere, down at the lake, on the islands or in the football stadium at the Canadian National Exhibition and just say: “Here are the homeless. Let us pretend that last night they were hit by a hurricane. Respond as you would in that situation.”

It is a great shame for this Legislature that we have not done what ought to be done for the homeless in Ontario.

1600

Let me deal with a couple of other concerns I have. Those who are tenants are somewhat better off. They have some shelter. But there is a great irony here too. We have all kinds of laws on the books of Ontario to protect tenants in almost every way you can think of. The only problem is that there is virtually no one to enforce those laws.

It would be an interesting approach if any other law in Ontario were dealt within the same way. If the Ontario Provincial Police had four officers to cover criminal law in Ontario, we would say that was ridiculous. If tenants, who have a legal right to certain prescribed circumstances, cannot get them enforced, then their legal rights do not exist.

I know the minister is aware that there are problems in the west end of this city where one landlord literally, physically threw his tenants on the street. All they had to do was to take that abuse, come to Queen’s Park, gather the attention of the media and the minister responded. But that is not much of a way to administer a law.

The ministry has had serious problems with its rent review program over the last year. They are doing a magnificent job of sitting on information, I must say. Still, in the midst of all that attention, in the midst of the fact that there are about 26,000 backlogged cases by some estimates, and at least 23,000 by the ministry’s own estimates, it continues to put forward more problems than solutions.

On Wellesley Street in Toronto, in one building at 155 Wellesley Street East, the rent review decision is public. It is a little over 20 per cent and has to be phased in over a five-year period. What that really means is that for the next five years, it is 20 per cent a year.

Part of the problem here is that the minister herself and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) cannot stand in this chamber and say, “The average rent increase across Ontario will be five per cent,” when there are people in Ottawa who have already been hit with 36 per cent and people in Toronto with 20 per cent; and all around Ontario, as this pattern emerges, the average is 12 per cent or 13 per cent.

In the main, they would be really happy if the government would simply enforce the laws that are there, however imperfect they might be. If a law is of equal stature to the Highway Traffic Act, why is it not applied equally?

I gather that the ministry is now aware that people are trying to elicit key money from tenants. I am aware that every time they catch one of these cases, they issue a press release. Here is one that came on my desk today. The irony again struck me.

In this one, a Mississauga woman was fined $450 for demanding key money. She pleaded guilty to demanding $1,000. She was fined $450 and she wanted $1,000. Not bad. Dillinger would like those rules. You go into the bank and you say, “Give me $10,000;” and the clerk says, “It is only going to cost you $5,000.” He says, “All right, I will take the other $5,000,” and walks away.

There is an immense problem here of key money and illegal practices all through the landlord and tenant situation, particularly here in Metropolitan Toronto. It is especially unfortunate for those who do not live in Toronto where there are legal aid clinics and tenants’ associations and tenants can at least fight back.

Tenants have had a rough year and it does not look to me like it is going to get any better.

Let me talk about one other area. It is a tough one and several governments have taken a run at this. Perhaps because no one has really done anything over the last few years, we are left again with a cumulative problem.

It used to be that young families had, if not a right at least a reasonable expectation that at some point in their working lives they could buy a home. That is a dream these days. It is a dream for a variety of reasons. It is not likely to be a reality for any of them.

There are some startling little facts in here. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that not one member of this Legislature, on the legislative salary, could qualify for a mortgage on a new home in Toronto? Now, are we not supposed to be the fat cats, the well paid in our society? Not one member, on the base salary, which is what would be used in trying to qualify for a mortgage, could qualify for a mortgage on a new home in the city of Toronto.

Most of us, I hope, are as lucky as I. We bought homes several years ago. I would be really happy to sell my house as long as I did not have to try to buy another house. Most families are in the same position. For people who are trying now to get a home, which not that long ago did not seem to be an unreasonable expectation, it is unreasonable, for a variety of reasons.

I was interested, for example, that in the recently tabled budget the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) now has a new program to assist people to save up and buy a new house. I asked him, “Where can you use this new program?” He thought maybe St. George, but he could name nowhere else -- certainly not here in Toronto, certainly not where I live in Oshawa, certainly not in most parts of Ontario.

It is interesting too that in the same budget, he allowed you to save roughly $1,000 per year and he raised the provincial sales tax on a housing unit $1,500 to $3,000. You are not getting far on that basis. When the price of the unit goes up $3,000 and you are allowed to save $1,000, you are in the hole $2,000. Most people can figure out that kind of economics at their kitchen tables. They know they are in a hole.

I noticed too that last week, although it was not done in the Legislature, the Premier seems to have taken over the ministry. The Premier invited local mayors to come in. In my reported version of what transpired at that behind-closed-doors meeting, it was very simply that the Premier has finally figured out that housing is more than a sweet headache. It is going to cost him a government if he does not smarten up. That always catches his attention.

He has figured out that he ought to do something about it; he is not quite sure what. He called the mayors in and said, “Listen, we really have to do something here.” He was a little short on the specifics about what he might do and a little short on the specifics about what might be done in general; but he said, “If you do not do something of your own accord, we are going to use all the power we have as a province to make you create affordable housing.” This is really an interesting approach to things.

Let me simply say that a ministry that has been unable to spend its allocated funds for three years in a row is not my idea of a real winner. That is not exactly how I would go about producing things.

If I were the Premier of Ontario I would be pretty quiet about things done under the Planning Act, because I remember being on a municipal council where we always used to wonder, “What the hell happened to that development plan we sent to Queen’s Park?” Trying to find it is the first and toughest game. “Which of the ministries has this thing seized in its little hands now? When might we ever get this back?”

This is a ministry and a government that for three years in a row has said the right things but has not been able to produce. It has failed to use up the allocations it had.

Among the many people I talk to who are trying to provide some kind of affordable housing, their number one enemy -- they know it, although some are afraid to say it -- is the ministry. The ministry that should be a friend to them, that should help them through the planning process, that should help them put together the proposals, that should help them make a better proposal, that should expedite that proposal, is the biggest enemy they have and they know it. The only problem is, they are afraid to say so, because the ministry is also funding them. That is a shame.

Let me offer some suggestions as to what the government might do. First of all, I think in fairness to all the tenants in Ontario, the government should turn to them and say: “The Landlord and Tenant Act is a law like any other law and it will be enforced that way. If there are flaws in it” -- I can think of some obvious ones, for example, in rent review -- “we will fix them.”

The obvious one in rent review is to close that little part of the act -- I think it is section 79 or something -- which says that if you incur financial loss we will allow you to roll that over, flip it, so that tenants will pay it. I know the intention when that particular section of the act was put in, but I also know how creative landlords have been in flipping apartment buildings, in creating debt positions, in making sure there was financial loss and in being able to document that. I know how tough it is for tenants to even combat the argument.

1610

Let me suggest to the government that if it is serious about providing affordable housing, it should say so. The minister does have, under the Planning Act, the ability to say to municipalities things like, “I would like to see -- in fact, I want to see -- that 25 per cent of the new residential growth that comes in your community is allocated to affordable housing, and we can spell that out for you about industrial average wage and all that kind of stuff.”

But for many of our municipalities, nobody has said that to them. I know what the development industry will say if the government applies it in Markham but not in Oshawa. They will say. “You’re picking on us.” The only fair way the government can do that is to apply that to every official plan in Ontario. And they will all complain -- I will give the government chapter and verse on exactly what they will say -- and then they will walk outside the door and say: “Well, hell, it’s just the cost of doing business. Somebody has now said we’ve got to provide some affordable housing, so we’ll do it.”

Every developer I have ever seen before, on any council I have ever been on, has done that. They all come in and say, “Your lot levies are atrocious. You’re ruining us. This is awful;” and then they say, “Give us the approvals and we will build it anyway and we will pay the money.” The cost of doing business.

One of the costs of doing business in the housing industry these days ought to be the provision of affordable housing. They can do it, but the problem is nobody says they must do it and so they will not. What about the government’s simply getting its people to start working with all of these ideas that have been generated, getting people to recognize that the government is not the number one enemy of nonprofit groups that are trying to provide affordable housing but the number one friend. That would be a substantial switch and that is why this motion is before members this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: I have been told the entente is that the next speaker will be a government member and you will alternate between the third party and the government party.

Hon. Mr. Patten: I welcome the opportunity to talk about housing and matters related to housing.

It seems to me that as elected members we are here to foster a climate of social justice and address vital social issues. As lawmakers and as legislators and people who determine government policy and set the government’s agenda, ours is essentially a social role. It is up to us to examine the inequities of society and achieve a balance where the basic needs of all are met. It seems to me that there are few needs more basic than shelter, yet in the economic and social context of today’s Ontario shelter has become an expensive commodity. You would expect shelter to be a problem in hard times, but in Ontario these are not hard times for most people; quite the opposite.

As the centre of this economic whirlwind, Toronto has the potential to address its own social needs and spin off benefits for other parts of the province, to diversify and contribute to the smaller communities in Ontario, to develop a network of prosperity that will sustain our standard of living during ebbs in the economic cycle.

Our challenge is to harness this economic energy and to direct it in positive ways to meet the social goals of government. All this economic expansion is drawing more and more people to this province and, in particular, to the greater Toronto area: 110,000 additional people moved to Ontario last year, primarily to the Toronto area, Kitchener-Waterloo and to the Ottawa-Carleton area.

That places greater demands on all the services our communities have to offer, including the cost and the availability of shelter; but it further underlines the problems of those not fully sharing in this prosperity. The provincial government is not alone in targeting these areas, nor is it alone in working towards these solutions. All across this province, communities are taking up the challenge, finding home-grown solutions to the economic and social conditions that they are confronting.

Des villes comme Sudbury et Sault Sainte-Marie illustrent bien le revirement extraordinaire qu’ont connu les économies locales au cours de ces dernières années. À notre avis, le gouvernement joue et peut continuer à jouer un rôle de catalyseur dans cette croissance, grâce aux moyens dont il dispose pour favoriser l’expansion et renforcer l’infrastructure socioéconomique.

The northern Ontario relocation program, for example, is an endorsement of our belief in the people and the communities of the north. It is a way we can build on what we are doing and on what they are doing. Bringing government closer to the people is one of the primary social goals behind our moving 1,600 jobs with an annual payroll of $48 million to four northern communities.

Programs such as our northern relocation cut across many ministry lines. As Minister of Government Services, I am in the fortunate position of working jointly with a number of ministries. That gives me the opportunity to see the true breadth and scale of government involvement with communities and local people in all areas of the province.

I mention this example because I feel it is the key to encouraging regional and provincial economic expansion. One of government’s roles is to help people locally to find local solutions. There is a vast knowledge in each community and there is a sensitivity to the nature of local needs that we need, of course, to release. When we do that, as we have seen in the examples I have mentioned, the benefits flow back to the whole community.

This has also been one of our approaches to the housing concerns. Of the houses brought on stream by this government over the last two and a half years, fully one quarter have been nonprofit units initiated by local community groups.

A few weeks ago, I announced the release of five provincially owned sites in the Metropolitan area. The Ministry of Government Services is the steward of Ontario lands. As part of that responsibility, MGS is reviewing the province’s surplus land holdings as part of the government’s Housing First policy. The sites recently released have been identified as having housing potential.

As my colleague the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) said, the province is prepared to lease or sell lands, as required, at below market value to assist in the creation of housing for low- and moderate-income earners. The minister emphasized, and I emphasize as well, that decisions to sell or lease land at below market value would be made on a site by site basis.

We are ready to cut housing costs by reducing the land component of the end price, but we intend to ensure that any cost reduction we create in this way is passed on to the people buying or renting the accommodation. For rental accommodation, one way we can ensure that these savings are passed on is through our support for nonprofit housing sponsored by local community groups.

The sites released in Metro are intended for a full range of housing, totalling some 2,000 units. When I say “a full range of housing,” I think it is important to understand that is what we mean. Those who feel that all housing on provincial lands should be for one income group only, I think need to listen very carefully to the lessons of history.

The meeting of the Premier with four ministers and the mayors this past week underlines that fact. I have said in the past -- and I will say it again -- that the days of high concentration of social housing are over. Our goal is urban development that features a mix of housing, a better-quality product more in keeping with the surrounding community character or, in fact, where required an improved social environment.

Affordable housing will be an important part of this, but it is not the whole story. I said earlier that shelter is a basic need, but shelter on its own is too limited a response. This is not housing in a vacuum. It is intended to be part of a living, breathing community. We want to involve the members of those communities in the end product and in the process that gets us there.

We want to satisfy social, economic and urban design objectives. We want to create neighbour-hoods within existing communities that are sensitive to their surroundings. To see these intentions put into practice we need look no further than the 50-acre site we released in Etobicoke. This is made up of lands owned by Humber College plus 32 acres owned by the province on the grounds of the former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital.

Requests for proposals have already gone out seeking a project consultant to develop site plans for this location. This consultant will look at the best use of this land, keeping in mind our Housing First objectives. In this process we will seek local comment and involvement. Indeed, this could well be a pioneering effort.

There is certainly a role for other provincial agencies with land to offer to follow the example of Humber College and join us in achieving our housing and urban development goals.

There will be further announcements in the near future on sites within the Metro area, in the area surrounding Metro and, indeed, across the province. Some of these will involve new mixed-housing developments. Others could highlight surplus government lands which have been examined for housing and found unsuitable for affordable housing. Money from the sale of these lands will boost the province’s housing development fund, rechannelling the proceeds for public investment into other programs to create affordable housing.

1620

We stand on the threshold of a new era of co-operation and accomplishment. In the words of Eldridge Cleaver, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” I am pleased to see that people across this province indeed are responding, that there is a growing realization that housing is everyone’s concern and not just the purview of government. Indeed, people are responding.

In my own riding of Ottawa Centre this is very much in evidence. Developers, nonprofit groups, tenants, landlords, government officials, community and church leaders are meeting at housing workshops to share their ideas on affordable housing and their action plans as well. I have hosted two of these workshops, which brought together more than 100 of these community and industry representatives. They have been very, very interesting, and indeed have challenged us to get on with the job, to cut irritants and to work together.

It is encouraging indeed to note that the workshop participants do not view housing as solely the government’s problem. In fact, they invite the government to work more closely with local groups to develop a widely accessible information base that will allow them, as community groups, to identify critical areas where they can help.

In response to this, I have asked several members of community organizations -- to name a few, Housing Help, the Centretown Citizens’ Community Association, Daybreak and the Federation of Ottawa-Carleton Tenants Associations -- to assist in these ongoing workshops. I am pleased to have the opportunity to work with these groups and thank them for their participation, as well as for their continued involvement in what is for all of us an exciting experience.

My colleague the Minister of Housing took part in the second workshop. I am sure she will agree with me that it was an exciting event, seeing realtors and developers discuss ways to make lands available to nonprofit groups and co-ops. It was gratifying to be part of the process whereby thought became concrete proposals. Workshop participants are now meeting with community churches to discuss land use. We are also organizing a pilot project to address the specific housing needs of seniors within the existing housing stock.

Ce qui se passe à Ottawa n’est qu’un exemple parmi d’autres. Nous constatons ce regain d’intérêt et d’enthousiasme pour la chose communautaire dans l’ensemble de la province.

This government is proud to play a part in this grass-roots movement. On one hand, we have been directly involved in providing affordable houses in Ontario. On the other, we are working closely with community groups to facilitate their involvement in this area. Our approach is innovative and diverse. We seek to strengthen local communities, to use our resources and staff to make them strong and viable. We are also, through our social ministries, enhancing health care and community support services in all communities, rather than concentrating them solely in metropolitan areas.

Local community groups, in my opinion, are an important key in the government’s nonprofit housing programs. We support them by giving them some tools to do the job. With these tools, they can create a response that indeed is tailored and customized to their own needs and conditions. I think this partnership between government and communities is a blueprint for positive action and the release of new resources to address housing in its variety of facets in the future.

Mr. Cousens: Today is a day that does not thrill any of us, to have to take time out of a busy schedule of the business of this House to debate a motion of nonconfidence in the government on an issue on which it was elected last September 10. Here today we have to bring to the attention of the government its failure to respond to housing needs in Ontario.

There has already been one vote of nonconfidence in this government. It took place in late March in London, Ontario. London North was in a position to elect a Progressive Conservative member to this House, based on the lack of confidence the people in that riding had and the failure of this government. There were many other issues that were part of the mix, but one of those issues happens to be housing as well.

Today, as we address this most important subject, we do it with a sense of great sadness. There is no joy at all for us to be here. Most of us have apartments or homes. We are doing well. We have so many things to be thankful for in this province, yet there is an increasing constituency of people out there in this province who do not have a home or who have to travel so far from their apartment to their work and their employment that it ceases to make life as meaningful and as good as it could be. It is especially shameful when you see a government that has just been full of words but not action.

Very often in the past, when you measure the effectiveness of a ministry, you look for something to happen in the first 100 days, when the government is elected. From September 10 through the first 100 days or so, this Minister of Housing made no announcements in the House; she made no initiatives. In fact, this government showed a callous disregard to the needs of the homeless and the needs of those people who are living on marginal incomes and having marginal places to live. It is a failure on the first order of this government to address a very significant problem. This government was elected on the promise of building and making available 102,000 units by the end of 1989. We are well on our way through 1988, and the chance of it fulfilling that promise is impossible now. Yet there it was, promised and not delivered.

Last week I had the opportunity to attend two tenants’ meetings in Metropolitan Toronto. By the way, the problem of housing is not just in Toronto but crosses all boundaries in this province, but in the Metropolitan Toronto area it becomes all the more severe when you start listening to the cries and the problems of people who were attending these meetings.

I asked one question: “How many people in this room are aware of anyone who has had to pay key money?” Someone from the ministry bragged saying, “We had at least eight people charged in North Toronto for having been involved with key money.” Yet more than half the 350 people at that meeting put their hands up as knowing people who had to pay an exorbitant amount for their carpet or for an air-conditioner or for something else.

Mr. Pouliot: Or $2,000 for a coffee table.

Mr. Cousens: Coffee tables; it could be anything. What is happening now is that this government says, “Yes, there are places available,” but the number of places available is 0.1 per cent. For every 1,000 apartment units, there is one vacancy. Does that make sense?

What happens now, is that these people, in order to find a place in downtown Toronto, can pay as much as $25,000 in key money. I do not know many people who have that kind of dollars, but that is a sum which has been spent by people, according to sources, to get into the ManuLife Centre at the corner of Bloor and Bay. The minister does not even sound as if she knows or is aware of it, but key money is a big problem. This government has not addressed the grass-roots problem, which is to have more units available.

The second question I asked is, “How many people here have applications for rent review and how many people have waited over a year for a response?” It was incredible the number of hands that went up: almost everybody’s. For a rent review system to be as backlogged as this one is almost criminal, because these people who are so backlogged are continuing to pay their present rent; then they come along and it is not 4.7 per cent or 4.9 per cent, it is a 10, 15, 20 or 30 per cent increase in the rent. Then they have to come back and dig into their back pocket or sell something or borrow in order to pay this increase.

If at least the rent review system was acting responsively and responding more quickly to the needs these people are having, there would be an answer in time for them to do something about it. But the terribly lengthy delay is adding to and compounding an already most severe problem. The number of people who have difficulty with the rent review system is something we should not accept.

1630

Michael Melling, who is with the Federation of Metro Tenants’ Associations, said that the number is not 23,000 who are in backlog, it is closer to 26,000. This minister never tells how many are on the list anyway, because she probably does not know; this ministry probably cannot even count that high. But the fact is that as long as there are 1,000, we have 1,000 too many. It could be 23,000 or 26,000 people who are backlogged and who are waiting 12 months, 15 months, 20 months.

I wonder if, some day when the minister starts answering questions in the House, she could tell us just how many people are on those lists, how many people have been waiting for over a year and how long it is going to take to get those questions solved. Certainly the government cannot just keep on throwing money against the wall and think it is going to solve it, yet that is what this government has done in its estimates. It has come along and said, “Next year we are really going to do something.”

Well, what they are going to do is spend money, but there is no guarantee that the additional money they are going to spend on their housing policy is going to guarantee any improvement in service to the people who are waiting for their rent review; and it is going up from $26 million in 1987-88 to over $50 million.

If I had any satisfaction that the $50 million was going to do something to help those people who are waiting for an answer, then that could be a good investment, but I see it as no investment. It works out to almost $2,000 per person who is waiting on those waiting lists. They could use the money a lot more to pay their rent.

So when we asked people at this meeting, “Are you having a problem with rent review? Do you have any concerns?” there was a strong statement from the people at that collegiate saying, “We have a problem.”

The third question was -- I will word it exactly as I did -- “How many people would like to own their own home?” Just about everybody said they would. Yet how many people are going to? Not with the way this government is going about it, not with the way in which people are having to cope. What kind of help is there when they go to buy a home? How is it possible for people with their own income to qualify for a mortgage even if they were to make as much money as we make? They would not qualify, as was so eloquently said by the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

It was a fascinating experience. It was one of those times when the minister had been invited to come but could not come. She had been invited to come to another session later on in the week at C. W. Jefferys Secondary School; she could not come to that one either. But the fact is that people who live in Metropolitan Toronto are not happy with their housing or their accommodations. We are seeing landlords flipping buildings, using excuses of maintenance costs to increase rent, and yet the maintenance and the services within those apartment units in which they are living is going down and down.

We are talking about people who are losing their very sense of pride in themselves because they are not able to live in a place in which people are collectively proud of where they are. We are seeing a society which is becoming a put-down group of people.

The fact that we have maybe 20,000 people who are on the streets of big cities in Ontario is only a symptom of a greater problem. It is a symptom of those people who are now living in apartments that they do not want to live in, apartments that are deteriorating because this government and this ministry have lost contact with the free enterprise system that might find ways of working with the government to invest in more housing, invest in more rental places, invest in more things.

No, this is a government that has turned off not only the renters and the landlords, it has turned off the private enterprise system by saying that it is going to do something for us, and yet it has not done it, it has not followed through.

Now, when we start seeing a $50-million bill for its housing program and no satisfaction on the part of our party that this government is really going to begin to achieve any improvement, that becomes a matter of confidence. So we come into this House to talk about the firsthand situations of people who are desperate for housing, desperate for a solution, desperate to pay the rent they are supposed to pay but who do not even know what it is going to be; and of the landlords who want to know what they are going to do this year. It is not just a tenants’ problem, it is a landlords’ problem too; because if the landlord does not have a clear indication of what he can charge for last year, how can he come along with a statement of what he is going to charge for this year?

What is a reasonable length of time for a person to have to wait for rent review, or for a landlord to have to wait for rent review? I asked the minister that question today, and both times she escaped answering it. We will keep asking that question: what is a reasonable length of time for people to get an answer from that system?

I am concerned about people who are starting to worry about security for themselves and for their families in their apartments. You know, we are talking about a system where, when you do not have a home and you do not have a house, people start to lose confidence in themselves. They lose that sense of hope for the future, and they talk about a society that begins to react in a violent way. May I suggest that the people who attended those meetings last week are reaching the end of their tethers. They know there is no one there fighting for them in this government.

I am pleased to say that our party is anxious to try to help. We see ways in which this government can work effectively with private enterprise, but we do not see it working with the way this ministry is being run.

I could not believe the number of concerns that came up at another session last week at C. W. Jefferys Secondary School, again in North York. It was one of those things where people would phone the Ministry of Housing to ask a question and they would get one answer, then they would phone another office and get another answer. It is sloppiness in the extreme. We are talking about a ministry that is throwing more and more money to try to solve a problem but is getting further and further away from a solution.

What is going to happen in Metropolitan Toronto if we continue to have the problems we have now? I venture to say that we will soon be at the point where they should just say: “No vacancy. There is no more room in this city for more people to come.” Why does this minister not come up with an innovative program that says, “Here is how we are going to do it”?

I was pleased to see that they had a meeting with the mayors of neighbouring municipalities. Words are cheap, but I just venture to say that these municipalities have been trying to do their job and will continue to try to do their job to build more affordable housing. But they do not have any sense of satisfaction that this ministry is going to change the amount of time it takes to cut red tape, or that this ministry is going to do anything to help provide more services when you have more people living in Peel, Durham or York. They have no confidence that this ministry is really going to work with them in an effective way.

So we deal with a situation that goes from bad to worse. We have always had a problem with housing, but we have never had the crisis that we have today, and this crisis is the reason for this nonconfidence vote. I am very pleased that our caucus will be supporting this nonconfidence vote. I just wish we did not have to, because if this government had fulfilled its commitment to do something in the time frame it had established when it won last September 10, we would not be talking about this today.

We will be talking an awful lot more about housing. We just hope that, before it is too late for those people who have the problem, this government will do something meaningful and tangible to solve the problem.

Ms. Poole: I welcome the opportunity to remind my colleagues exactly what this government has done to protect tenants. Since assuming office in 1985, our government has moved forward with legislation which has provided the tenants of Ontario with a set of a major and crucial tenant protection measures which are unprecedented in the history of this province. The Residential Rent Regulation Act, which was introduced by this government with all-party support, protects all -- -

Mr. Breaugh: No, no.

Ms. Poole: Well, how about two out of three?

Mr. Breaugh: That’s right.

1640

Ms. Poole: It protects all tenants in Ontario, not just those lucky enough to live in pre-1976 buildings, from unjustified rent increases. Under this legislation, for the first time, tenants have the opportunity to have the guideline increase reduced or even completely nullified if their landlords have failed to adequately operate and maintain their building. No longer are tenants required to pay arbitrary increases that bear no relation to the situation in their building. This is tenant protection.

To address the situation where rents were jacked up every time an apartment changed hands, our government has created a new province-wide rent registry. It will be a simple matter for tenants to determine whether they are being charged an illegal rent.

This government has also moved to create the new Residential Rental Standards Board. This board offers tenants new protection against shoddy maintenance and ineffective enforcement of building standards, which allow uncaring landlords to turn their homes into slums. I can assure the House that it does work. This past winter, dozens of tenants living at an Eglinton East apartment building contacted my office to complain they had no heat. Some mornings it was so cold that they went to work without taking a shower, because they could not bear to take their clothes off for that long. They explained to me that it was not a new problem; it had been going on for years. Their landlord did not appear to care about fines and work orders. He treated them as a cost of doing business.

I contacted the rental standards board and asked them to monitor work orders on the building very closely. After I had advised the owner that failure to resolve the problem could lead to rent abatements for every tenant in the building, the problem was miraculously solved. For the first time in three years, in the words of one of the tenants, it was “toasty warm” in their apartment the next morning.

This government has also adopted legislation to prevent the charging of key money, which had reached epidemic proportions. Convictions in my riding are starting to come in, and I am shocked, absolutely shocked, by the statement of the member for Oshawa. He has misstated the facts concerning key money. The individual to whom he refers would not only have to pay the $450 fine, that individual would also have to pay back the $1,000 in key money which he demanded.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: It has been a while since anybody accused me of misstating facts in here, and I would like the member to withdraw that.

The Deputy Speaker: Does the member want to withdraw that?

Ms. Poole: Mr. Speaker, the facts of the matter are that the member for Oshawa stated it would cost a person only $450, and he had made money because he charged $1,000 in key money.

Mr. Breaugh: I was quite content when she previously erroneously said that the rent review legislation had the support of all three parties, and she did correct that. I have asked her simply to withdraw a statement that I said something that was not true. That is not part of the debate here. The member should be gracious enough simply to withdraw something that is out of order and not babble on.

The Deputy Speaker: I believe the member stated what he believed were facts, and I would ask the member to withdraw that phrase.

Ms. Poole: If the member truly believed those facts, then I withdraw the fact that he misled the House.

Mr. Breaugh: No.

I do not wish to pursue this at great length, but I do not intend to take that kind of thing as a withdrawal. Everybody knows how to withdraw a statement. She should simply do that.

Ms. Poole: After the member’s gracious statement, what can I do but withdraw the --

Mr. Breaugh: That’s what you should have done the first time.

Ms. Poole: -- and I will take up anything else subsequent privately with you.

Mr. Breaugh: Any time, anywhere, any hour, to quote an old Jack Riddell phrase.

Ms. Poole: I remind the honourable member: he may not know my mother is in the House so would he please keep the innuendo to a minimum?

The list of government initiatives goes on and on. The Landlord and Tenant Act was changed to extend protection to roomers, boarders and lodgers. The Rental Housing Protection Act is important legislation and has been extended for a further year, or will be in the near future. Regulations to prevent the loss of rental housing to suite hotels, very important regulations to my riding, have recently been introduced.

I do reject any suggestion by the opposition that the government and government members do not care about tenants. I would like to issue a challenge to the members of the opposition. If there is a member of the opposition who has published a comprehensive tenant guide as easy to understand and as fully comprehensible as this, then he may make the statement that the government members do not care as much as the opposition does. There are many government members working for the benefit of tenants, and I would remind the opposition of this fact.

I reiterate that since 1985 our government has brought into effect some of the most comprehensive tenant protection legislation in the nation. This government has provided and will continue to provide tenant protection for all tenants in Ontario.

Mr. Beer: As we address this motion and as we look at what the government is attempting to do in this area, we have to recognize clearly that with respect to many of the tragic facts that have been set forward in terms of people who are searching for affordable and adequate housing, for people who need improved housing, those problems are indeed with us; but we must not lose sight of the fact that we are making progress through a number of initiatives and programs, not only in terms of what the province itself is doing, but particularly in terms of its work with municipalities and various nonprofit and community organizations.

If there is one thing that has struck me as a member since I joined this House last fall, it is how important it is in the construction of affordable housing that we involve the local municipalities and various community and church organizations in the planning and delivery of those new units.

We can look in the budget and in various parts of the estimates of the Ministry of Housing to see that we are increasing the amount of money we are putting into this very important area, not the least of which is the commitment for the sum of some $2 billion, which will flow through the Canada pension plan, in order to assist affordable housing. I want to share some of the things that have happened at a practical level in York region which I believe demonstrate the importance of this working together.

It strikes me that the kind of meeting that took place earlier this week between the Premier, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Patten) and other ministers and the various mayors in the regions surrounding Metropolitan Toronto is critical. I do not know whether other members have had an opportunity to talk with some of those mayors, but I have. I believe the feeling they took from those meetings is that the province is definitely determined to work with them. Both levels of government have got to look at the kind of red tape and planning problems that exist. We have to cut those so that the housing is on line much faster.

York region has recently, in the last month, created a nonprofit housing corporation modelled on that of Peel and Durham. When we look at the kinds of things that Peel has accomplished over the last 10 or 12 years, we realize that a great deal of very creative and innovative housing can be built. I would defy anyone to go into Peel region, look at the different kinds of affordable housing it has constructed over this past decade and try to determine which was affordable and which had been built by the private sector at market rates.

There is a great deal that can be done, is being done and will be done in this area through the co-operation of both levels of government, as well as working with various church and community groups, whether we are talking about co-operatives or private nonprofit.

The second thing that has been mentioned and that is important in this regard is what happens to government lands. Again in York region, the province owns a good number of acres. We are already down the road to finding better ways of using that land for housing. In my own riding, in the town of Aurora, a major study was made by the province and the town in looking at a section on the southern end. That report has been released. The local council has dealt with it and is moving into the planning phase to put affordable housing on that land.

By the same token, in the private sector there are now proposals in York region going to different municipalities where the private sector is coming forward with mixed housing proposals, including within that different ranges of affordable housing.

Clearly this is an issue that has to be addressed by all of those who are involved in providing housing, not just the province. But our role is perhaps seen most importantly as twofold: one, the provision of dollars and two, the provision of leadership.

1650

While we have focused and concentrated a great deal on the problems that exist in the housing area -- and there are some and we are not denying it -- I know that we here recognize, and I believe the people out in the communities and the people in the municipalities recognize, that in this Minister of Housing we have someone who is looking very carefully and thoughtfully at developing new plans and new proposals that are going to bring about an increase in the housing stock.

In order to deal with the problem, you have to first understand it, you have to get the ear of the Treasurer in cabinet to bring forward the funds and you then have to work with the people in the local communities in order to implement that proposal. I do not think there is anyone on the government side, and I would hope increasingly on the opposition side, who cannot recognize that that is happening. We are going to meet the challenge of providing more and better affordable housing, and for this reason this motion should be defeated.

Mr. Jackson: I appreciate the opportunity to add a few remarks with respect to the concerns I have been raising as the member for Burlington South about the problems in one particular area of the housing crisis, although I would like to talk about how the government is handling the land-banking provisions under the new government. That is somewhat different in terms of its way of marketing properties that are owned by the government and is markedly different from the way of the predecessor government, which it can be demonstrated had the effect of helping to stabilize markets where additional lots were put on the market.

It is a testament to a civil servant by the name of Bob MacDonald who went around this province to help stabilize that inflationary experience when lots were at such a premium. Unfortunately, we are seeing rather the opposite with the government’s stated purpose of selling off the surplus lands to the highest bidder and thus, in effect, driving up not only the price of the lots it is selling, but also the lots around and in the immediate vicinity of where it is selling the land.

I hope that the minister, understanding economics as well as she suggests she does, will re-examine from that specific point of view that element, the manner in which the government is depositing building lots in the residential market.

I hope we will use the process of this debate as an occasion to examine various elements of legislation. For my purposes today, I would like to address solely Bill 51, the government’s initiative with respect to modifying rent control in this province. I hope we will use this occasion to examine elements of that bill in the hope that we will encourage the government to address its badly needed amendments, and I might even go so far as to say its massive overhaul.

I speak with a reasonable degree of authority on the subject, having worked on the bill for six and a half months and having had an experience in the private sector of dealing with meeting housing needs, both as the chairman of the housing authority and in the responsibility of marketing properties in Ontario. At the end of the total experience I had with the government’s Bill 51, I felt impelled to vote against it. I did that for a series of obvious reasons which I would like to reiterate briefly.

At the time, I indicated that the direction in which it would appear Ontario was going was that there had to be a mechanism solely for the purpose of increasing rents so that it became more equitable for landlords and tenants. Nowhere in that argument was there any evidence that the needs of tenants who are most adversely affected by rent increases were being met within the structure of the bill.

So at the outset I indicated that it was a grand plan to increase the expense of the bureaucracy, and on the second day of hearings we determined that there would be a doubling and almost a tripling of the civil servants required to administer this bill. Our party at the time proposed several amendments that the minister is aware of, one of which was that the government consider a comprehensive shelter policy based on tenants’ incomes and abilities to pay, where the rents are moving closer to their market values.

At the time, the ministry -- I believe it was Gardner Church who was assistant deputy minister at the time -- indicated that such a plan would be too expensive. I asked him: “What do you think of your government’s Bill 51? How much money do you think it will cost?” The assistant deputy minister’s response was that surely a shelter allowance program would cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million to $22 million. We could ill afford that. It would be irresponsible to spend those kinds of dollars.

I said, and I am quoted as stating in hearings, that this bill was going to cost over $30 million in pure administration and bureaucracy alone. Of course, I was severely laughed at and scorned for making such a wild presumption. I was wrong, of course. I was off by $4 million, because within a year and three quarters, almost two years, that figure had gone to $34 million.

Using the government’s own figures, it was becoming increasingly apparent that we could have and should have channelled those dollars instead of increasing the civil service in this province. Again, all the bureaucracy that has been built around Bill 51 has not specifically done anything to assist those tenants based on need directly. I was compelled to vote against the bill and I still feel, to this day, it is one of the worst pieces of legislation that has ever come into this House.

It is for this reason that I patiently awaited the Thom commission report. I felt sure the learned Stuart Thom, having spent millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money over an extended period of time to study the impact of rent controls -- not here but in other jurisdictions -- had come to similar conclusions, which I, in my own simple way, had come to when I was dealing with Bill 51. I was most distressed that, even as a new minister, the minister would have dismissed in one sentence the work of Mr. Thom.

What is most significant about Stuart Thom’s findings is that the Premier indicated that his proposals would mean a 50 per cent increase for tenants. He dismissed the whole report on that basis.

I had occasion to meet with Mr. Thom during the now-famous by-election in London North, and I asked him: “Your work in the report was based on what figures -- the experience of Bill 51, the Liberal’s model legislation for rent control; or was it established on the old system which was in place under the Conservative government?”

He indicated that he was pleased the question was being asked because he had sensed that it was unclear, at least in the minds of the public and the politicians, that his calculations were based on an old bill which had caused rents to remain at a relatively low rate in this province. The now-famous ceiling or guideline rate under the previous administration was four per cent: it immediately jumped to 5.2 per cent, as the then minister indicated this was a positive step forward for tenants.

The Premier referred to millions of dollars of increase; but in the two years that Bill 51 has been a feature of the calculation of rents in this province, it has had the effect of ratcheting up rents at an alarming rate.

In fact, with respect to the very levels which Mr. Thom referred to as those which were close to the market rates, which had been suppressed by the Conservative government legislation, Mr. Thom’s contention was that we were moving more rapidly to that market rent under the Liberal government’s new bill. The minister is painfully aware that as there are backlogs with her current bill in terms of initial applications, there are even more serious backlog problems with the appeals. I hear that in the Ottawa office alone, 100 of the 150 awards are currently under appeal.

The point here is that Thom’s contention is that there may even be examples now where rents in Ontario, under Bill 51, have risen above market rates, exceeded them, and there could be cases of gouging going on under the blanket protection of Bill 51. The facts of this are going to become better known in the coming weeks as there are more and more of these awards.

1700

I wish I had more time to participate in the debate but I want to share with members four or five examples in Toronto alone: 103 West Lodge Avenue, 720 units, had a 30 per cent increase; 157 Madison Avenue had a nine per cent, an 8.7 per cent and now a 102 per cent increase under the legislation --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up.

Thank you. The Minister of Housing.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: It gives me great pleasure to take part in today’s debate on the motion of nonconfidence in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. His motion provides me with the opportunity to explain to all members of this House the bold new initiatives that this government has undertaken.

Let us not underestimate the severity of the challenge we are facing. Many families across this province are unable to find decent affordable housing. Children are growing up in crowded conditions, their parents pressured by the crisis that they face. Young people begin to think the dream of owning their own home will always be just that -- a dream. What matters to me are those families, those children, those young couples and those dreams. The government in which I serve has made housing its priority. We have moved on many fronts and we will do a great deal more.

There are three elements to the government’s commitment to put housing first. They are resources, people and action. All of our initiatives tie these three elements together to ensure that families across Ontario can have decent affordable housing. Without each of these present, we could not develop the solutions that our citizens expect -- resources, people and action. Members will appreciate my enthusiasm for the directions in which we are headed. I would like to take a few minutes to expand on these themes.

Resources is obviously the easiest concept to understand. It is also inevitably the way people keep score on the depth of a government’s commitment to any particular issue. The provision of decent affordable housing requires resources, principally dollars and land. I am pleased to say to all those who are keeping score that we are winning. We need look no further than the recent budget introduced by my colleague the Treasurer. The Ministry of Housing was treated as a priority, receiving the largest increase in percentage terms of any major ministry. Spending by my ministry will rise almost 40 per cent in the coming year.

The budget underlined this government’s commitment to housing by noting: “Including Ministry of Housing programs, shelter subsidies, property tax credits and grants and the new initiatives...support for housing will exceed $1.4 billion in 1988-89, an increase of 77 per cent over the amount” when we came to office in 1985.

A closer look at the budget leads to an inescapable conclusion that it will enable us to make real, lasting progress in providing more affordable housing for the people of Ontario. First, with the provision of $2 billion, we will be adding some 30,000 affordable rental units over the next three to five years to the existing stock of nonprofit housing. Up to 70 per cent of these rental units will be geared to income. In addition, we will provide $210 million each year to support the operation of these 30,000 nonprofit units.

Taken with our prior commitments, the province will be responsible for the creation of 55,000 new units in the next three years. The budget will also provide for $100 million in capital renovations to raise the standards of housing leased for nonprofit use.

The budget establishes a housing development fund which will take the money we net from the sale of government land and channel it into affordable housing programs. At this time, we estimate that about $150 million in revenue can be generated this way over the next five years.

The budget established the Ontario home ownership savings plan. Through this program the government will spend $50 million a year helping 150,000 individuals and families saving for their first home. We shall also enhance annual shelter subsidies by $20 million and subsidies will be provided for the construction of about 5,000 new student-resident places.

Looking at the budget initiatives, I can say that the Liberal government can be proud of its record of achievement in housing. It would be a mistake, however, to overlook the resources committed earlier.

Last month, the Minister of Government Services announced that the government was prepared to sell or lease land at below market value to help in the creation of housing for low-and moderate-income earners right across the province. As an initial step, five potential sites were identified in the Metropolitan Toronto area. There will be other sites all over the province and they will be used to solve the housing problems that we have.

Members can easily see that the government is prepared to provide the resources needed to meet the housing challenge. Were we to do nothing more, and I can assure the members that will not be the case, the resources we have already committed will make a major and fundamental difference in the province.

We understand, however, that it is people who apply resources to solve problems. People are the second element of the broad housing strategy we have embarked upon. When I say “people,” I mean a number of things. To me, “people” means the protection of those who are vulnerable, those on fixed incomes, those who feel they are being taken advantage of in today’s housing market.

“People” also means partnerships: partnerships with other levels of government, such as the mayors with whom we met last week; partnerships between me and other Ontario government ministers whose responsibilities directly affect affordable housing in this province, and partnerships with community groups and the private sector which designs, builds and manages nonprofit housing in the cities and towns of Ontario. “People” also means the creation of housing which will please people and enhance communities.

Let us take a look at some of the specifics about the role of people in the job we are doing. Three months ago, I took the decision to cut restrictions on applications for subsidized housing. I announced that people would now be housed on the basis of need alone. This means that, for the first time in this province, low-income single people, couples without children at home and new arrivals in this province are free to apply for rent-geared-to-income housing, as have been seniors and families for a number of years.

We took steps to meet special needs in the community. For example, battered women and their children are now given special priority for assisted housing. Already, about 800 battered women and hundreds more children have escaped to Ontario Housing Corp. housing from their abusive relationships.

Last December, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and I introduced a $31.5-million program to help homeless people. This program enables us to improve emergency shelters in the short term and, at the same time, to move people from shelters into permanent housing, because it is only in permanent housing that these problems will be solved.

The program also made it very clear that we were going to help the community groups all over this province which have solutions for the problems of people who are currently homeless and which have worked successfully with homeless people all over the province. We would give our resources to those groups to help them do an even better job than the job they are currently doing.

But I understand that the answers for homeless people lie in the provision of more housing, more permanent housing, which they can afford to live in. That is the direction we are going in. That is why the increase in supply of nonprofit housing is going to make such a big difference.

All of what we have done is clear evidence that we are working for the vulnerable people in our society, for those for whom home is perhaps a distant concept. At the same time, we have accepted our obligation to those who have homes but who feel threatened by the changes going on around them.

I recently proposed to this Legislature the extension of the Rental Housing Protection Act. This interim move, for a period of one year, will permit us to find more permanent ways of protecting tenants whose affordable rental housing might be demolished or given major renovations or be converted to other uses.

Our government has also provided an enhanced level of protection to tenants in this province. Everyone living in private rental accommodation has come under the protection of rent review. Our government has extended those safeguards to an additional 250,000 people. Tenants can now be charged only a single rent increase each year. There were many, many tenants in this province who were not protected from having rent increases charged any number of times a year.

1710

The charging of key money has been made illegal. Prosecutions are moving forward. Convictions have been registered. Tenants need only call us to bring the full weight of the law down on this criminal activity. I urge those tenants who have this problem to call the ministry and we will help them. We have extended protection to roomers, boarders and lodgers. We have regulated the operators of illegal suite-hotels to protect their tenants. I want to stress that none of these measures was in place prior to this government taking office.

Let us not forget that when we talk about tenants we are talking about people, about ourselves, our neighbours, our children, our brothers and our sisters. The government will do whatever is necessary to protect our people and their homes. When we talk about people, we also mean partnerships. My colleagues and I in government have never lost sight of the fact that it is people who create housing.

Last week, we held the first in a series of meetings with Ontario’s mayors. Together, the provincial and municipal governments have embarked on a process to deal with the problems that confront us. At the provincial level, we have pledged to slash the red tape that holds up the development of housing in our communities. We have indicated that every community deserves affordable housing and that we expect every community to work with us to make sure it is built. There has been a very positive initial reaction from our municipal counterparts.

The province, and the Premier in particular, has stated that we are putting housing first. We have the powers to force municipalities to do the same thing and we are prepared to use those powers wherever it is necessary. We share the same objectives. We have the will to achieve them. Together, the province and the municipalities are working quickly, as the Toronto Star put it, “to get cracking on this problem.”

In the past, we have also worked well with the federal government. We intend to remind the senior level of government of its responsibilities in this area. We fully expect it to play an active role. I invite the members of the third party to use whatever influence they may have with that government to help us in that direction.

Similarly, we are building on our partnerships with community groups right across this province. Earlier today, I met with representatives of the nonprofit sector to explore the next steps in the construction of the 30,000 new nonprofit housing units unveiled in the budget.

We want to move quickly. There is a great deal of work to be done. Based on today’s meeting, I would say the spirit is very willing and we will be successful. Our partnerships with the private sector are crucial as well. We could not realize our plan of building 55,000 nonprofit units in the next few years without the participation of the commercial sector.

I cannot discuss people without talking about existing communities and neighbourhoods. In many cases, we are dealing with people who have lived in their homes for long years and who are concerned about how the housing challenge and the government’s massive response to it will affect them.

Let me be clear. We are building high-quality housing, which will be integrated into our neighbourhoods. This will be housing that people will be proud to live in and show pride of residency and that neighbours will be proud to live next to. Nonprofit housing to this government does not mean ghettos or crime or declining property values. It means, instead, thriving communities, a quality of life and a skilful and beautiful blend of the old and the new.

Finally, I would like to spend a few minutes talking about action. The successful mixing of people and resources results in action. Commitment and resources, money and land by the government and the goodwill of people are nothing if action does not result. In addition to the achievements I have already mentioned. I would like to describe some of the action that has been taken. Since 1985, ground has been broken on 22,000 brand-new nonprofit housing units. Most of these are already completed. Construction will begin on many thousands more.

Later this week, I will lay the cornerstone for a 77-unit project sponsored by the YWCA in Riverdale. These are the results of the proficient mix of resources and people that has resulted in housing. There are more than 400 sponsoring nonprofit groups in the province with 300 municipalities participating. I have listened and acted to make existing programs relevant. I have established $25 million in loan guarantees for land and pledged resources to rehabilitate 33,000 rental units by 1990.

A great challenge faces us all and that means all of us must work together. We will not solve this problem overnight, but we have made great progress. We will provide decent, affordable housing for people.

My friend the Leader of the Opposition is a great friend of affordable housing in Ontario. He, his party and the third party have increased the volume of the debate. I now invite them to work with us to make sure that our objectives are met. Our commitment is clear. We are confident of the directions in which we are headed, despite the great challenge facing us. I respectfully ask for the confidence of members of this House as well.

Mr. Brandt: I look forward to sharing a few comments with the minister in regard to the subject at hand, one that is of very critical concern to the members of my party, that being the whole question of housing. I want to say at the outset that I do not, nor do the members of my party, question the sincerity or the integrity of the minister relative to the whole question of housing.

We recognize it is a very complex, very difficult subject and one the minister has shown concern over. However, I remind the minister that we are daily faced with very difficult political problems in this House, and concern and good wishes and future projections are simply not sufficient to clear up the problems we have been facing in the housing market, particularly in the Metro Toronto area, during the course of these past few short years.

I want to be helpful and positive and to contribute in, hopefully, a way that will be of some benefit to the minister in terms of analysing the essence of this debate, portions of which she may be able to apply to the various facets of her ministry. From my perspective, I think one of the problems that really appears to be inherent is the confusion in the Ministry of Housing at the moment.

That confusion results from an act, which was developed by her government, that now takes some 56 pages of explanation just to read the act alone. The minister brought out a simplified version. which one of the government members spoke of earlier, that apparently reduces this to about 20 pages in its most concise form. But the problem is that the average tenant, and I might add as well the average landlord, particularly those who are owners of small buildings, cannot understand what this act is all about.

The minister will probably say to me that is simply not true. I have brought along this afternoon physical evidence of the kind of application tenants have to put together in order to respond to one application on the part of a landlord. This is the tenant’s response. It goes into some 30 separate subjects, dealing with the maintenance of the building, dealing with the landlord’s position as it relates to the justification for the rent increases, and it has to respond to each and every one of those.

It now requires, as a result of Bill 51 and as a result of the legislation the government now has in place in this province, a tremendously expensive legal process the like of which was never anticipated by any members of this House. I recognize that there are many members of the government party who were not here when this legislation was brought in, but this is the outfall of it and this is not an unusual case.

One would ask, what is happening with the applications? The minister knows full well. I raised this is in question period with her just a week or two weeks ago, when I talked about the application on the part of a seniors’ building in the small town of Paris, not too far from that great metropolis of St. George, where the gas station is located and where the rates are somewhat more competitive than they are in other parts of the province.

In that particular area in the riding of the Treasurer himself, we have a number of tenants who are concerned about the application being brought forward by the owner of their building for a 9.7 per cent increase. Not only are they concerned about that increase; the fact of the matter is they have been two years now waiting to find out whether that application is going to be approved and whether their rent is going to be 9.7 per cent for one year compounded by a second application, which is also for 9.7 per cent.

1720

I can tell members that if both of those increases are allowed, and many of them are, based on the information we have received with respect to how these applications are being handled, the fact of the matter is that they will be forced out of their homes.

It was interesting, as I perused this document, to see the number of tenants that were on fixed income, the number of tenants that were receiving absolutely no pensions whatever. The number of tenants that would be forced out of their homes in this building if the application went through is absolutely staggering.

Bill 51 causes me a great deal of concern because there is an old saying that justice delayed is justice denied. In this particular instance, what we have is justice delayed in a very real sense because the applications are simply taking too long and the information that is coming through with respect to the bottom line for those applications, namely what is going to be allowable, is not coming through in a way that will give the tenants the kind of peace of mind they require.

There is another part that bothers me, the slowness, if you will, I recognize the resources the minister has put into this area of activity within her ministry to try to hear these things more quickly. But I suggest to her that what she has done in the last couple of years is to increase and bloat that bureaucracy by some 220 per cent. That is not even including the $3 million supplement she put into her budget this year to get her through the year. I would say that all those things put together would indicate to her that there is something wrong with the entire process. It is far too complicated and far too cumbersome. The tenants and the landlords have both lost faith and lost trust in the system.

I suggest that putting more money into the bureaucracy, in particular, is not the solution. The massive backlog is going to continue because the process is proving to be unfair and should be looked at.

The second part of the concern I have, moving off the rental accommodation if I can for a moment, is the difficulty that many of the Metro tenants and many of the people who live in the Metro area are facing at the moment. This is not just related exclusively to this part of Ontario, but certainly is being experienced in other parts of Ontario as well. Not only can they not find an apartment to rent, one that is available -- they simply cannot get into a building -- but second, the whole cost of purchasing a home has reached a level where it is totally unaffordable for the average Ontario citizen at this time.

What was the response of this government? What did they do in order to contribute to the solution we all look for with a problem of this kind, namely a problem of affordability? What they did is they brought in a new budget and that new budget brought in some very substantial increases in the construction industry that were totally unnecessary.

We now have a $200,000 home in this area, if you can buy a $200,000 home in this area, which in itself is a major question. The increases, and I asked this in a question earlier today in question period, now total some $3,255.

Mr. B. Rae: How much?

Mr. Brandt: It is $3,255. That is made up of a one per cent increase in the sales tax, which is about $2,000. The land transfer tax, just the additional portion, the added part, is $355. Now. listen to this: Here is how they build more homes. I want all the Liberals to listen to this. They expand the sales tax to include concrete and to include asphalt mix. We did not have that in the sales tax before. What they do is broaden the sales tax, the very thing they were so critical about when a former government did it at one time. What they have done is exactly the same thing, but they have hit the housing industry at exactly the wrong time. The cost of that is some $900.

If they add up the figures I have just shared with them, what has been happening, as a result of this absolutely insane budget they have brought forward, is that the cost of a house is now going to be $3,255 more on average, just because of the moves the government has made in the budget. I might add that does not include any added sales tax, which the government knows went up 14 per cent in this budget. The cost is moving from seven to eight per cent. One per cent gives the minister -- in this case, the Treasurer -- an additional 14 per cent in sales tax revenue and this additional cost I am referring to does not relate to items like furnishings and equipment for a new home.

I say to the minister that her concern and the problems she has identified in housing could have been met, at least in part, had she argued in cabinet against a budget that increased the price of housing in this province unnecessarily. If nothing else, the minister could have exempted certain building materials. She could have exempted some of this added expansion of the tax in order to bring down the price of a house, because I can tell the minister, and I know she understands this from her economic background, for each $1,000 or $1,500 or $2,000 added on to the price of a home, she excludes certain people who reach the break point. Those people are unable to make the move as a result of that price edging up higher and higher. They are prepared to make the sacrifice, but the sacrifice becomes simply too great.

Let me tell the House another thing that concerns me. When you see this kind of application in the whole rent review process, particularly as it relates to small apartment buildings -- my family was in the apartment rental business at one time and I can remember the day, and so can my colleagues, when there was a kind of rapport, a relationship, if you will, where the people who rented apartments from my father were friends of his.

What we have done now is we have brought about an adversarial relationship where everybody is pitted against the other guy. You have the landlord pitted against the tenant, because the government insisted upon including in its legislation that all apartment buildings of six units and under should be included in this legislation. What that has done is killed off the small investor.

It has killed off the little guy who went out, bought a building, had a couple of tenants in the building and invested his hard-earned money, maybe because it was going to be a long-term pension plan. What the government has done is taken those kinds of investors, those kinds of small landlords and edged them out of the market.

I know of cases, with no exaggeration, where landlords who were in the market at one time have taken their keys, dropped them down and walked away from their buildings because they cannot comply with this kind of legalistic, bureaucratic approach to the whole market. Even some of the large landlords are having difficulties, some of the very big landlords. But I am not arguing their case at the moment because I understand they are big enough to look after themselves; what I do argue, however, is that some of the government’s legislation is making it virtually impossible for those small, limited-size landlords to get into the market to help the government overcome the housing crisis.

Government in and by itself cannot create all the housing that is going to be necessary. The government knows that. Our party wants to set before the government, and is prepared to work with it, encouraging the private sector to get back into the market. I ask the government to look at those small buildings as one way of encouraging more investment and encouraging some people to take up some of that excess demand out there. Right now, I want to tell the government, its legislation has frightened them.

Let me give a specific example of a situation I know of, a small landlord who had a very close working relationship with one of the tenants in his building, and this particular elderly lady was given a discounted rent simply because she was a good tenant. A small landlord will make a deal with a good tenant. If the tenant is not noisy, if the tenant does not destroy the building and if the tenant pays the rent on time, guess what happens? The landlord says, “I’ve got a good tenant I want to hang on to,” so he discounts the rent in order to make that unit available for that individual.

When Bill 51 came in, what happened was that the rent was held to an artificially low level on that particular unit because the individual knew full well that as soon as those increases came through at some later point, they would start at the base level for that good tenant. So the landlord could no longer make a deal, if you will, with the tenant. The landlord could not reach out and say to this tenant, “I am prepared to work co-operatively with you on your personal unit.”

1730

That is what we have lost by making government so all-in-control of this particular facet of provincial activity. I say it is wrong, and I tell the government, it is not going to get the private sector back into the market and it is not going to have them provide some of the units it requires to get out of the dilemma it is in now.

Yes, we need a form of rent control; yes, we need to have the kinds of things that will protect tenants against bad landlords. But we also have to have some encouragement there to get some of the private capital back into the market, some of these small landlords who can be very helpful to the government in meeting some of the challenges it has before it.

Mr. B. Rae: I am proud to participate in this debate, and I want to congratulate all the members of my caucus who participated in it.

I am under strict instructions not to say anything critical of the third party, but I must say with respect to the speech I have just heard, I will make only this very brief point: I find it hard to listen to arguments critical of Bill 51 from a party that, together with the Liberal Party, is responsible for the passage of Bill 51, with one or two exceptions. If the members of the Conservative Party had joined us, we would have been able to defeat Bill 51 and force the Liberal government of the day to bring in better legislation that would have protected tenants. That is what we would have been able to do.

However, it is the government of the day that is responsible for our situation. I want to say that there is no issue upon which this government deserves to be judged critically by the people of this province that is as clear-cut and as overwhelming as the question of housing.

I do not think there is a member in this House who does not receive on a daily basis the kinds of really tragic stories from constituents who are applying for assisted housing, who are living in very difficult circumstances and who are now forced, by a point system which has been endorsed by the Liberal government, to wait for years and years for housing that will be adequate for them and their families.

We have a rent review bill that is specifically designed to inflict some of the largest and highest increases imaginable on tenants. We warned the government over two years ago that that would be the impact of Bill 51 and we have been proven correct.

We have a government which is afraid to do what needs to be done to ensure that housing is at the very top of the priority list and not somewhere mired at the bottom, which is where it is today. We have a government that is prepared to lead with its press releases and its media events, but which is unable to deliver the goods.

We have a double standard: a government that meets with municipal officials, where the Premier takes over the meeting and the headlines in the newspapers say how the Liberals are going to get tough with the municipalities. At the same time as that is taking place, the government is releasing its own estimates book, which shows that the government has consistently underspent its budget for the Ministry of Housing. It even shows a discrepancy of some $28 million between the figures listed in the budget of the Treasurer and the figures listed in the estimates book in terms of what the government is going to be spending for next year.

We have a waiting list that has gone up 77 per cent in the past two and a half years and we have a government that has consistently failed to deliver on its promises with respect to affordable housing. We have instead budget announcements stating, for example, that the government is going to encourage the nonprofit groups to borrow up to $2 billion from the Canada pension plan.

We asked our researchers to phone up the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to say: “How did you come up with the figure of 30,000 units? Will those 30,000 units be new units?” They said, “No, we don’t anticipate that they will be new units.” The Treasury and Economics official said that only 15,000 of the 30,000 would in fact be new units; that the remaining 15,000 would be existing private-sector rental apartments, which are either to be purchased -- 10,000 units -- or leased – 5,000 units. When our researchers contacted the Ministry of Housing to find out whether this was correct, they were unable to confirm the Treasury’s figures. The statement was given by Housing ministry staff that the 15-to-10-to-5 ratios were used by Treasury solely as assumptions to be used to calculate overall government expenditures.

Wherever we go with this housing situation, we have a sense that this government does not have a clue, it does not know where it is going, it does not know what the problem is, it does not know what needs to be done.

I want to deal specifically for a few moments with the question of rental housing. I have made a point in this House of raising with the minister and with the Premier examples of where we can show apartment units trading on the open market for 25, 50, 100, 150 and 200 per cent of what they were trading for two years ago. I say to all the members of the House that there is only one reason apartments are trading for that much money. They are trading for that much money because those who are purchasing them are convinced that the cash flow they will get from rents will more than pay for what they are shelling out.

I asked these questions in response to a number of phone calls I have had from people who have been involved in the real estate market themselves. They said, “Are you aware of what’s going on?” I said, “The only thing we see is the effect it has on the rents.” They say: “Go behind the rents and look to see what is happening in the resale market. Bill 51 is an invitation to speculate.” That is the word we got from people who are in the business themselves. We can establish it clearly: Bill 51 is a bill which is having the effect of encouraging speculation, not of stopping it.

I can tell the minister that until she comes to terms with that, all of the points which have been made about the bureaucracy, all of the points which have been made about the unfairness will continue to be made in this House, because they are going to be experienced by tenants.

The Liberal rent review law is a bad, sick joke. It is unenforceable. It is unworkable. It is providing for rental increases that in some cases are even higher than so-called market values. It is a system that has broken down and is failing to work. It is time this government came to terms with that.

I want to emphasize as well the question of the collapse in the rent review system, looking at the complete inadequacy of what this government has suggested. Perhaps I could be anecdotal for a moment, Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me. I was reading with interest the Saturday Star, not because it had an article about me in it, I can assure you, but because --

Mr. Breaugh: It was a very nice article.

Mr. B. Rae: It was a very nice article. I want to say to the member for Oshawa that I appreciate the resolution coming from him that he considered me to be the leader of the New Democratic Party. That is the kind of support I need. It is the headline that says: “Will Mutiny Sink the Liberals?” I am sure members opposite will have all read this particular edition of the paper.

If one reads the opening section of the Toronto Star -- I would just ask the minister to do this when she is giving her speeches about how the government has laboured forth over the last two and a half years and produced a couple of hundred units here and there. I want her to have a look at what is going on out there in the private market: “The Landmark of Thornhill. A Bayview address. Carriage-trade condominiums within a 24-acre park estate.”

Turn the page to talk about “Marina Del Rey…Toronto’s finest waterfront community.” It has been pointed out by my colleague the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) that it is a community that is fine because it is right next to a public park which all of us have paid for.

We then turn the page to a rather dramatic two-page foldout describing “Grand Harbour in Etobicoke. Lakeside condominiums in the classic style.” Advertising for units that have not even been approved; advertising for units whose official plan does not even include them; advertising for speculators to: “Come on down. Put your money down here, because you’re going to make money because the prices are going to go up.”

It goes on. It is page after page. Here is one: “Live where the city lives. Condominium residences on University Avenue.... The Empire Plaza.... Behind its boldly streamlined exterior of granite and glass” -- sounds like the consistency of the Liberal cabinet -- “Empire Plaza offers a luxurious private domain.”

An hon. member: Granite is the head part of it.

1740

Mr. B. Rae: Granite is the head part, and glass is where you would normally find the soul.

“And with ownership comes the EmpireCard which gives you instant access to a variety of personal services.

“EmpireCard privileges: florist, housekeeping, limousine, catering, travel, business centre, fitness, personal beauty care, valet.”

Interjection.

Mr. B. Rae: “Valet.” The member heard it. How screened is my valet?

“Empire Plaza. Undeniably downtown. Unmistakably exclusive. And your opportunity to own Canada’s single most desirable address. Available from $250,000 to over $1,000,000.”

That is the housing that is being constructed in Liberal Ontario, not housing for ordinary people. It is luxury housing. It is luxury condo after luxury condo, page after page, from Tridel to Empire Plaza. It is a disgrace. We have a situation in this province in which private greed and private enrichment have replaced the notion of the public good when it comes to housing in this province. That is what has happened. That is what has been presided over by the Liberal Party. That is what it has allowed to happen. It has sat back and done nothing.

When we have said there is speculation going on in rental housing, there is speculation going on condominiums, there is speculation going on in private development, they say: “No, no, it could not be.” Let me tell the members, it is happening. It is taking place because we have a government in this province which is not prepared to do what needs to be done on behalf of its citizens.

We have a situation where, with respect to health, for example, we have accepted as a community the fundamental reality that health is not a commodity to be traded on the open market. When it comes to education, we have accepted as a community that education is not something that people should be deprived of; it is something that should be provided on a public basis. When it comes to housing, we have this curious ambivalence on the part of the Liberal and Tory parties, and that ambivalence says housing is something to be left entirely to the private sector, and what government does and what they do will be as an afterthought.

I am here to say today that as far as I am concerned, as far as the New Democratic Party is concerned, shelter and housing are fundamental human rights and something that every government has an obligation to ensure every citizen has, every family has. I am here to say that the record of this government on housing is so disgraceful that it deserves to have a motion of nonconfidence moved against it in this Legislature.

The choices we face are very clear. Either we can accept our social responsibilities with respect to housing, or we can sit back and wait for the private market to do it. I have heard many nostalgic pleas for the world of the past, criticisms of Bill 51 from those, perhaps, who would like to see us enter a world where we have no protections at all, saying the answer will be when the private market comes back.

I am here to say that it is not going to work. We need a commitment to a mixed economy in housing. We need a commitment, yes, to the rights of ownership but not to the rights of speculation; yes, to the rights of pride that a family has in its own home but not to a situation and to a structure which forces thousands of families to be split up, which forces thousands of families to be living in unacceptable and intolerable conditions when it comes to basic quality of life.

We say no to a situation which treats one part of our society as if it is a privileged few and which treats everybody else as if they are somehow to be left, neglected and simply treated as some kind of a hidden welfare problem.

We insist on the premise and on the view that housing is a right, that housing is something that the government has a responsibility to ensure is provided, and we say quite categorically that if the private market cannot do the job, then it is something that the public market has an obligation to move into to provide and create.

I say as well that it is perfectly obvious that whether we look at the question of rental housing, which is now a recipe for speculation; whether we look at the situation with respect to affordable housing for working families, where again speculation has made their lives impossible; whether we deal with the very real problem of homeless people; whether we look at the units that are being destroyed and wiped out that are now affordable and are there for people, whatever we look at, we find a common thread -- a government which has failed to do its job, which has failed to listen and which has failed to provide the housing that the vast majority of people in this province think should be there.

I think it is fair to say that this government promised a great deal on housing in 1985. It promised a great deal on housing in 1986. It promised a great deal on housing in 1987. The situation has deteriorated. The situation has got worse since it took over. The last promise it made was in 1988 and it is as worthless as the ones it made in 1985 with respect to housing.

It is with a great sense of pride that I endorse the motion standing in the name of my colleague, the member for Oshawa, endorse the motion that this House has lost its confidence in this government because of its inability and its failure to deal with a fundamental human need in this society: the need to be housed well, the need to be able to take pride in what you have, the need to feel that at the end of the day you have got a roof over your head and a shelter that is decent. That is a need that is not being met today. Let none of us take any pride in the fact that this government has been unable to do it.

Mr. Speaker: That concludes the allotted time for debate on the motion of nonconfidence. I know all members have been listening carefully and are fully aware of the motion, so I will place the motion.

1752

The House divided on Mr. B. Rae’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Brandt, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Jackson, Johnston, R. F., Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, Morin-Strom, Philip, E., Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, B., Reville, Runciman, Sterling, Villeneuve, Wildman.

Nays

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Black, Bossy, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Dietsch, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Ferraro, Fulton, Furlong, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett;

Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McClelland, McGuigan, McGuinty, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nicholas, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neill, Y., Oddie Munro, Owen, Patten, Pelissero, Phillips, G., Poirier, Polsinelli, Poole, Ramsay, Reycraft, Riddell, Roberts, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, Sorbara, South, Stoner, Sullivan, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Wilson, Wong.

Ayes 30; nays 82.

Motion negatived.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.